Islamic Civilizationhttps://islamciv.com
Islamic Civilization
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:41:19 +0000 en
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/https://islamciv.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/islamciv-logo2.jpeg?w=32Islamic Civilizationhttps://islamciv.com
3232Islamic Judicial Principles relevant to the Asia Bibi Casehttps://islamciv.com/2018/11/12/islamic-judicial-principles-relevant-to-the-asia-bibi-case/
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:02:34 +0000http://islamciv.com/?p=1706The case of Asia Bibi, a Christian who was sentenced to death in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, has thrown the spotlight on Islamic law (sharia) and its judiciary. Predictably the west has used the case to attack sharia as barbaric and label Islamic courts as kangaroo courts where no justice is served. The status of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule is also under fire where they are viewed as an oppressed minority subject to the tyranny of the Muslim majority.

This article is not a detailed judicial analysis of the case but simply a list of 10 points from sharia which are relevant to this issue. The full Pakistan Supreme Court judgement can be read for more detail on the evidence used in the case itself.

Insulting the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is a red line that can never be crossed

Allah (Most High) says in the Holy Qur’an:

وَالَّذينَ يُؤذونَ رَسولَ اللَّهِ لَهُم عَذابٌ أَليمٌ

“As for those who insult the Messenger of Allah, they will have a painful punishment.”

(At-Tawba, 61)

The west will always cite freedom of speech as an excuse to insult and defame religion and prophets as we see them doing with Prophet Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him). Despite this the Muslim ummah remain firm that this is a red line that cannot be crossed. The Ottoman Caliph Abdul-Hamid II prevented France from hosting Henri de Bornier’s Mahomet play in 1890 and a future Caliphate will defend all the prophets on the world stage.

Qadi Iyad states: “Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.” (Kitab al-Shifa bi-Ta‘rif Huquq al-Mustafa)

Extra-judicial punishments are not permitted

It must be made clear that all hadd-punishments must be implemented by a legitimate Islamic State (Caliphate) through an officially appointed judge (qadi).

Muslim ibn Yasār said: Abū ‘Abdillāh, a man from the Sahābah, would say:

‘Zakāt, Hudūd, Fay’ (spoils) and Jum‘ah are (consigned) to the Sultān.’ (Imām al-Tahāwī as mentioned in Fath al-Bārī of Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī)

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (rh) said in al-Furoo’ (6/53): ‘It is haraam for anyone to carry out a hadd punishment except the ruler or his deputy. This is something on which the fuqaha’ of Islam are unanimously agreed, as was stated in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (5/280): The fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that the one who should carry out hadd punishments is the ruler or his deputy, whether the punishment is transgressing one of the limits of Allaah, may He be exalted, such as zina, or a transgression against another person, such as slander.’

Al-Qurtubi said: ‘There is no dispute among the scholars that qisaas (retaliatory punishments) such as execution cannot be carried out except by those in authority who are obliged to carry out the qisaas and carry out hadd punishments etc, because Allaah has addressed the command regarding qisaas to all the Muslims, and it is not possible for all the Muslims to get together to carry out the qisaas, which is why they appointed a leader who may represent them in carrying out the qisaas and hadd punishments.’ (Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 2/245, 246)

Pakistan is a Republican Federal Democratic Nationalist state and does not implement an Islamic judiciary

The Pakistan constitution clearly states that, ‘Pakistan shall be a Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’, and although like most Muslim countries it includes the article ‘Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan’ this doesn’t make it an Islamic State implementing sharia.

Therefore it is no surprise that miscarriages of justice occur frequently within the judiciary of Pakistan since the judiciary is not based on Islam.

The Islamic Judiciary has decisional-independence

Decisional independence is the idea that the judge should be able to decide the outcome of a trial solely based on the law and case itself, without letting the media, politics or other things sway their decision.

It’s clear that the judiciary in Pakistan does not have decisional-independence from political pressure either at home or abroad. This is why so many ordinary Muslims do not accept the judgement of the courts and instead turn to wide-scale protesting.

The EU at the beginning of this year said that renewal of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) plus facility and future financial assistance in the pipeline will be linked to a positive outcome on Asia Bibi, well informed sources in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Business Recorder.

This echoes the Raymond Davis case where he was freed by the courts even though he murdered two men in Lahore.

Islamic courts are not kangaroo courts

The burden of proof for hadd-punishments is extremely high, the only acceptable evidences being:

confession made without duress

trustworthy witnesses

oaths

documentary evidence.

The judge must be just, a knowledgeable faqih (jurist) and aware of how to apply sharia rules to different realities.

“The judges are of three types: one is in heaven, the other is in fire. As for the one who is Jannah, he is the man who knows the truth and judges by it, whereas the one who knows the truth and aggrieves it in judgment, he is in fire. And the man who judges for the people on ignorance is also in fire.” [Abu Dawud]

Innocent until proven guilty

The Presumption of Innocence exists in an Islamic judicial court where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “It is the plaintiff who should provide the evidence, and the oath is due on the one who disapproves.” (Al-Baihaqqi)

Judge cannot pass judgement based on his personal biases

While the judge may hold personal opinions regarding a person or a religion, or have immense love for the Prophet ﷺ this cannot cloud his judgement.

Allah (Most High) says in the Holy Qur’an:

وَلا يَجرِمَنَّكُم شَنَآنُ قَومٍ عَلىٰ أَلّا تَعدِلُوا

Do not let hatred for a people incite you into being unjust.

(Al-Maida, 5:8)

Ibn Abu Bakrah reported: My father wrote to Ubaidullah ibn Abu Bakrah who was a judge, saying: Do not pass a judgment between two people while you are angry, for I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “The judge should not judge between two people while he is angry.” (At-Tirmidhi 1334)

Confessions must be given in court and free from duress

Extra-judicial confessions are not valid and any confession must be made in a judicial court in front of a judge. The confession is not automatically accepted and it must be examined to see if the defendant is mentally stable and understand what they have admitted to.

Imam Ali narrated that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, ‘No hadd punishment is to be carried out on someone who admits wrongdoing if he is subjected to harshness. If you chain or detain or threaten someone, then his admission is not valid.’ (Musannaf abdur-Razzaq, 7199; Fiqh al-Imam Ali 1/348)

Jabir b. Samura reported: As he was being brought to Allah’s Messenger ﷺ I saw Ma’iz b. Malik-a short-statured person with strong sinews, having no cloak around him. He bore witness against his own self FOUR TIMES that he had committed adultery, whereupon Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said: ‘Perhaps (you kissed her or embraced her).’ He said: ‘No. by Allah, one deviating (from the path of virtue) has committed adultery.’ (Muslim 1692)

These are clear evidences that confessions must be verified and made freely without coercion.

Witnesses must be cross examined and not automatically accepted

There are many conditions of witnesses in Islam and the sharia texts have specified those witness statements which cannot be accepted. These are:

untrustworthy people (ghayr ‘adl)

those harboring hostility (against whom they testify)

those on whom the Hudd of defamation (qazf) has been applied

traitors (whether male or female)

the servant who is completely preoccupied with his work

a son for the favor of his father and vice versa

and a woman in the favor of her husband and vice versa

The two most relevant in this case are conditions 1 and 2.

As for rejecting the testimony of untrustworthy people this is due to Allah’s (Most High) saying:

وَأَشهِدوا ذَوَي عَدلٍ مِنكُم

“Call two upright men from among yourselves as witnesses”

(Talaq, 65:2)

Ahmad ad-Da’our states: ‘These texts have stipulated that the witness be trustworthy (‘adl). The meaning (mafhoom) of these texts is that that the testimony of the untrustworthy people cannot be accepted. Previously we have mentioned the definition of trustworthy (‘adl) as being abstaining from that which the people consider violation to uprightness (isiqaamah). So, whoever does not abstain from that which the people consider violation to uprightness is unreliable/untrustworthy, thus his testimony is not accepted.’

If a witness has a dispute with the defendant and harbours hatred against them then their testimony is not accepted. It is up to the judge to make this judgement based on cross examination of the witnesses.

Ahmad reported from ‘Amr b. Shu’ayb from his father who narrated from his father that the Messenger ﷺ said: ‘The testimony of a traitor is not allowed, nor someone who harbors hatred to his brother.’ (Ahmed)

Even if trustworthy witnesses are brought their testimony is not automatically accepted. They must be cross examined and ultimately it is up to the judge to decide whether to accept or reject their testimony.

Ahmad ad-Da’our states: ‘As for the fact that the testimony is definite does not mean the judge is obliged to give judgement according to it. This is because it is based on certainty for the witness, but the judge might have a reality that contradicts this testimony. He might even have a definite text, which contradicts this testimony, or the witness is likely lying, in his view. Therefore, the judge is not obliged to judge according to a testimony even if it was given on the basis of certainty, rather he has the choice to accept it or reject it.’ (Ahkaam al-Bayyinaat)

Non-Muslim citizens (dhimmi) are treated justly by all state institutions

The dhimmi will have full access to judicial due process and the principles discussed above will be applied to them as they are applied to Muslims.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ wrote to the people of Yemen: ‘Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it, and they are obliged to pay the jizya.’ (Abu ‘Ubayd)

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, ‘The diyyah (blood money) of the Jews and Christians is like the Muslim’s diyyah.’ (Narrated from Amru bin Shuaib from his father from his grandfather)

It is narrated in a hadith that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ killed a Muslim for a mu’ahid (citizen of a state who we have a treaty with) and said, ‘I am the most noble of those who fulfil their dhimmah’.” (Al-Bayhaqi)

In 1480 Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih launched the most audacious expedition of his leadership. He sent an army under the Grand Admiral of the Ottoman Navy, Gedik Ahmet Pashato to Southern Italy to capture Otranto.

The army moved inland towards Brindisi, Taranto and Lecce, but Duke Ferrante of Naples led a counterattack and the Ottoman army was pushed back to Otranto where the majority of the Ottoman Army sailed away.

However, the Ottomans left a group of troops stationed at Otranto whilst the Greek Island of Rhodes was being captured. When the Island of Rhodes was abandoned, the Ottomans returned and continued fighting well into 1481.

The occupation of Italian lands so close to the main altar of Christendom caused a great level of concern and panic. Blame was shifted around Italy and people in Venice were accused of doing nothing and were even accused of aiding the Ottomans.

In spite of the retention of Rhodes, fear of the Ottomans was now at its highest. Muhammad Al-Fatih himself was said to be coming to Italy and the Pope considered fleeing to Avignon. What saved Italy from the Ottomans was only the eventual death of Muhammad Al-Fatih in 1481.

It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the Deen of Truth to exalt it over every other deen, though the idolaters hate it. (Surah Saff, verse 9)

]]>Battle of PrevezaislamcivSinéad O’Connor reverts to Islam: “They are the people guided by their Lord. They are the ones who have success.”https://islamciv.com/2018/10/27/sinead-oconnor-reverts-to-islam-they-are-the-people-guided-by-their-lord-they-are-the-ones-who-have-success/
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 08:42:53 +0000http://islamciv.com/?p=1695Sister Shudada’ Davitt (formerly Sinéad O’Connor) has accepted Islam saying ‘This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey’.

أُولٰئِكَ عَلىٰ هُدًى مِن رَبِّهِم ۖ وَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ المُفلِحونَ

“They are the people guided by their Lord. They are the ones who have success.” (Al-Baqara, 2:5)

This is to announce that I am proud to have become a Muslim. This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey. All scripture study leads to Islam. Which makes all other scriptures redundant. I will be given (another) new name. It will be Shuhada’

Islam rejects blind faith and throughout the Holy Qur’an, Allah commands human beings to contemplate on His creation so they can come to the natural conclusion that all things are created by Allah (Most High).

Ha Mim. This Scripture is sent down from God, the Mighty, the Wise. There are signs in the heavens and the earth for those who believe: in the creation of you, in the creatures God scattered on earth, there are signs for people of sure faith; in the alternation of night and day, in the rain God provides, sending it down from the sky and reviving the dead earth with it, and in His shifting of the winds there are signs for those who use their reason. These are God’s signs that We recount to you [Prophet, to show] the Truth. If they deny God and His revelations, what message will they believe in? (Al-Jathiya, 45:1-6)

A Universe from Nothing? The Qur’an’s Argument for God

Imagine you find yourself sitting in the corner of a room. The door that you entered through is now completely sealed and there is no way of entering or exiting. The walls, ceiling and floor are made up of stone. All you can do is stare into open, empty space, surrounded by cold, dark and stony walls. Due to immense boredom you fall asleep. A few hours pass by; you wake up. As you open your eyes, you are shocked to see that in the middle of the room is a desk with a computer on top of it. You approach the desk and notice some words on the computer screen: this desk and computer came from nothing.

Do you believe what you have read on the screen? Of course you do not. At first glance you rely on your intuition that it is impossible for the computer and the desk to have appeared from no prior activity or cause. Then you start to think about what could possibly have happened. After some thought you realise a limited number of reasonable explanations. The first is that they could have come from no causal conditions or prior activity—in other words, nothing. The second is that they could have caused or created themselves. The third is that they could have been created or placed there by some prior cause. Since your cognitive faculties are normal and in working order, you conclude that the third explanation is the most rational.

Although this form of reasoning is universal, a more robust variation of the argument can be found eloquently summarised in the Qur’an. The argument states that the possible explanations for a finite entity coming into being could be that it came from nothing, it created itself, it could have been created by something else created, or it was created by something uncreated. Before I break down the argument further, it must be noted that the Qur’an often presents rational intellectual arguments. The Qur’an is a persuasive and powerful text that seeks to engage its reader. Hence it positively imposes itself on our minds and hearts, and the way it achieves this is by asking profound questions and presenting powerful arguments. Associate Professor of Islamic Studies Rosalind Ward Gwynne comments on this aspect of the Qur’an: “The very fact that so much of the Qur’an is in the form of arguments shows to what extent human beings are perceived as needing reasons for their actions….”[1]

Gwynne also maintains that this feature of the Qur’an influenced Islamic scholarship:

“Reasoning and argument are so integral to the content of the Qur’an and so inseparable from its structure that they in many ways shaped the very consciousness of Qur’anic scholars.”[2]

This relationship between reason and revelation was understood even by early Islamic scholars. They understood that rational thinking was one of the ways to prove the intellectual foundations of Islam. The 14th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya writes that early Islamic scholarship “knew that both revelational and rational proofs were true and that they entailed one another. Whoever gave rational… proofs the complete enquiry due them, knew that they agreed with what the messengers informed them about and that they proved to them the necessity of believing the messengers in what they informed them about.”[3]

The Qur’anic argument

The Qur’an provides a powerful argument for God’s existence: “Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and Earth? Rather, they are not certain.”[4]

Although this argument refers to the human being, it can also be applied to anything that began to exist, or anything that emerged. The Qur’an uses the word khuliqu, which means created, made or originated.[5] So it can refer to anything that came into being.

Now let us break down the argument. The Qur’an mentions four possibilities to explain how something was created or came into being or existence:

Created by nothing: “or were they created by nothing?”

Self-created: “or were they the creators of themselves?”

Created by something created: “or did they create the heavens and the Earth?”, which implies a created thing being ultimately created by something else created.

Created by something uncreated: “Rather, they are not certain”, implying that the denial of God is baseless, and therefore the statement implies that there is an uncreated creator.[6]

This argument can also be turned into a universal formula that does not require reference to scripture:

The universe is finite.

Finite things could have come from nothing, created themselves, been ultimately created by something created, or been created by something uncreated.

They could not have come from nothing, created themselves, or have been ultimately created by something created.

Therefore, they were created by something uncreated.

The universe is finite

A range of philosophical arguments shows the finitude of the universe. The most cogent and simplest of these arguments involves demonstrating that an actual physical infinite cannot exist. The type of actual infinite that I am addressing here is a differentiated type of infinite, which is an infinite made up of discrete parts, like physical things or objects. These physical things can include atoms, quarks, buses, giraffes and quantum fields. The undifferentiated type of infinite, however, is an infinite that is not made of discrete parts. This infinite is coherent and can exist. For instance, the infinity of God is an undifferentiated infinite, as He is not made up of discrete physical parts. In Islamic theology He is uniquely one and transcendent.

The most persuasive and intuitive arguments to substantiate the impossibility of an actual infinite come in the form of thought experiments. Now the concern here is with the impossibility of the physical infinite being actualised. This is different from mathematical infinites. Although logically coherent, these exist in the mathematical realm, which is usually based on axioms and assumptions. Our concern is whether the infinite can be realised in the real physical world.

Take the following examples into consideration:

Bag of balls: Imagine you had an infinite number of balls in a bag. If you take two balls away, how many balls do you have left? Well, mathematically you still have an infinite number. However, practically, you should have two less than what is in the bag. What if you added another two balls instead of removing them? How many balls are there now? There should be two more than what was in the bag. You should be able to count how many balls are in the bag, but you cannot because the infinite is just an idea and does not exist in the real world. This clearly shows you cannot have an actualised infinite made up of discrete physical parts or things. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought… the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[7]

Stack of cubes with different sizes: Imagine you had a stack of cubes. Each cube is numbered. The first cube has a volume of 10cm3. The next cube on top of that has a volume of 5cm3 and the next cube is half of the previous cube. This goes on ad infinitum (again and again in the same way forever). Now go to the top of the stack and remove the cube at the top. You cannot. There is no cube to be found. Why? Because if there was a cube to be found at the top it would mean that the cubes did not reach infinity. However, since there is no cube at the top, it also shows—even though the mathematical infinite exists (with assumptions and axioms)— that you cannot have an actualised infinite in the real world. Since there is no end to the stack it shows the infinite—that is made up of discrete physical things (in this case the cubes)— cannot be physically realised.

Conceptually, the universe is no different to the bag of balls or the stack of cubes I have explained above. The universe is real. It is made up of discrete physical things. Since the differentiated infinite cannot exist in the real world, it follows that the universe cannot be infinite. This implies that the universe is finite, and since it is finite it must have had a beginning.

The scientific research that relates to the beginning of the universe has not been discussed here because the data is currently undetermined. Underdetermination is a “thesis explaining that for any scientifically based theory there will always be at least one rival theory that is also supported by the evidence given…”[8] There are around 17 competing models to explain the cosmological evidence. Some of these models conclude that the universe is finite and had a beginning and others argue that the universe is past eternal. The evidence is not conclusive, and the conclusions might change when new evidence is observed or new models are developed (see Chapter 12).

Now we are in a position to apply the four logical possibilities to explain the beginning of the universe and discuss each one.

Created from nothing?

Before I address this possibility, I need to define what is meant by ‘nothing’. Nothing is defined as the absence of all things. To illustrate this better, imagine if everything, all matter, energy and potential, were to vanish; that state would be described as nothing. This is not to be confused with the quantum vacuum or field, a concept I will explain later. Nothing also refers to the absence of any causal condition. A causal condition is any type of cause that produces an effect. This cause can be material or non-material.

Asserting that things can come from nothing means that things can come into being from no potential, no matter or nothing at all. To assert such a thing defies our intuitions and stands against reason.

So could the universe have come into existence from nothing? The obvious answer is no, because from nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness cannot produce anything. Something cannot arise from no causal conditions whatsoever. Another way of looking at it is by way of simple math. What is 0 + 0 + 0? It is not 3, it’s 0.

One of the reasons that this is so intuitive is because it is based on a rational (or metaphysical) principle: being cannot come from nonbeing. To assert the opposite is what I would call counter discourse. Anyone could claim anything. If someone can claim that the entire universe can come from nothing, then the implications would be absurd. They could assert that anything could come into being without any causal conditions at all.

For something to arise from nothing it must have at least some type of potential or causal conditions. Since nothing is the absence of all things, including any type of causal condition, then something could not arise from nothing. Maintaining that something can arise from nothing is logically equivalent to the notion that things can vanish, decay, annihilate or disappear without any causal conditions whatsoever.

Individuals who argue that something can come from nothing must also maintain that something can vanish from no causal conditions at all. For example, if a building completely vanished, such individuals should not be surprised by the event because if things can come from no causal conditions at all, then it logically implies that things can vanish by means of no causal conditions as well. However, to argue that things can just vanish without reference to any causal condition would be rationally absurd.

A common contention is that the universe could come from nothing because in the quantum vacuum particles pop into existence. This argument assumes that the quantum vacuum is nothing. However, this is not true. The quantum vacuum is something; it is not an absolute void and it obeys the laws of physics. The quantum vacuum is a state of fleeting energy. So it is not nothing, it is something physical.[9]

Professor Lawrence Krauss’s ‘nothing’

Professor Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe from Nothing, invigorated and popularised the debate on the Leibnizian question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”[10] In his book, Krauss argues that it is plausible that the universe arose from ‘nothing’. Absurd as this may sound, a few presuppositions and clarifications need to be brought to light to understand the context of his conclusions.

Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. In his book he calls nothing “unstable”[11], and elsewhere he affirms that nothing is something physical, which he calls “empty but pre-existing space”[12]. This is an interesting linguistic deviation, as the definition of nothing in the English language refers to a universal negation, but it seems that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is a label for something. Although his research claims that ‘nothing’ is the absence of time, space and particles, he misleads the untrained reader and fails to confirm (explicitly) that there is still some physical stuff. Even if, as Krauss claims, there is no matter, there must be physical fields. This is because it is impossible to have a region where there are no fields because gravity cannot be blocked. In quantum theory, gravity at this level of reality does not require objects with mass but does require physical stuff. Therefore, Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. Elsewhere in his book, he writes that everything came into being from quantum fluctuations, which explains a creation from ‘nothing’, but that implies a preexistent quantum state in order for that to be a possibility.[13]

Professor David Albert, the author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience, wrote a review of Krauss’s book, and similarly concludes:

“But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of simple physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field- theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields —it is just the absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some do not is not any more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some do not. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not any more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.”[14]

Philosophical distinctions

Interestingly, Professor Krauss seems to have changed the definition of nothing in order to answer Leibniz’s perennial question. This makes the whole discussion problematic as Krauss’s definition blurs well-known philosophical distinctions. The term ‘nothing’ has always referred to non-being or the absence of something.[15] Therefore, the implications of Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is that it could be reasonable for someone to assert the following:

“I had a wonderful dinner last night, and it was nothing.”

“I met nobody in the hall and they showed me directions to this room.”

These statements are irrational statements and therefore amount to meaningless propositions, unless of course someone changes the definition of nothing. It is no wonder that Professor Krauss hints that his view of nothing does not refer to non-being. He writes: “One thing is certain, however. The metaphysical ‘rule,’ which is held as ironclad conviction by those with whom I have debated the issue of creation, namely that ‘out of nothing, nothing comes,’ has no foundation in science.”[17]

This clearly means Krauss has changed the meaning of nothing to mean something, because science as a method focuses on things in the physical world. Science can only answer in terms of natural phenomena and natural processes. When we ask questions like, what is the meaning of life? Does the soul exist? What is nothing? the general expectation is to have metaphysical answers—and hence, outside the scope of any scientific explanation (see Chapter 12).

Science cannot address the idea of nothing or non-being, because science is restricted to problems that observations can solve. Philosopher of science Elliot Sober verifies this limitation. He writes in his essay Empiricism that “science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.”[18] Therefore, Professor Krauss has changed the meaning of the word “nothing” in order for science to solve a problem that it could not originally solve. Perhaps this outcome should be accepted as a defeat as it is tantamount to someone not being able to answer a question, and instead of admitting defeat or referring the question to someone else, resorting to changing the meaning of the question.

It would have been intellectually more honest to just say that the concept of nothing is a metaphysical concept, and science only deals with what can be observed.

Inconclusive research and popularising linguistic gymnastics

Putting all of this aside, Professor Krauss admits that his ‘nothingness’ research is ambiguous and lacks conclusive evidence. He writes, “I stress the word could here, because we may never have enough empirical information to resolve this question unambiguously.”[19] Elsewhere in his book he admits the inconclusive nature of his argument: “Because of the observational and related theoretical difficulties associated with working out the details, I expect we may never achieve more than plausibility in this regard.”[20]

In light of this, Professor Krauss should have just said the universe came from something physical like a vacuum state, rather than redefining the word nothing. But Krauss seems to be adamant in popularising his linguistic gymnastics. During our debate, Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense? I referred to his book to explain that his nothing is something, like some form of quantum haze. However, he reacted and said that his nothing is “No space, no time, no laws… there’s no universe, nothing, zero, zip, nada.”[21]

Krauss seemed to have deliberately omitted an important hidden premise: there is still some physical stuff in his nothing, something which he clearly admitted to in a public lecture. He said that something and nothing are “… physical quantities.”[22]

In summary, Professor Krauss’s nothing is something. The universe came from something physical which Krauss calls “nothing”, and therefore failing to answer Leibniz’s question: Why is there something rather than nothing? In reality, Krauss only answers the question: How did something come from something? That is a question that science can answer, and which does not require linguistic acrobatics.

God’s existence is not undermined by Krauss’s view on nothing. All that he has really presented to us is that the universe (time and space) came from something. Therefore, the universe still requires an explanation for its existence.

If you cannot have something from nothing, then how did God create from nothing?

This contention is false, as it implies that God is nothing. God is a unique agent with the potential to create and bring things into existence through His will and power. Therefore, it is not the case of something coming from nothing. God’s will and power were the causal conditions to bring the universe into existence.

Something coming from nothing is impossible, because nothing implies non-being, no potential and no causal conditions. It is irrational to assert that something can emerge from an absolute void without any potential or prior causal activity. God provides that causal activity via His will and power. Even though the Islamic intellectual tradition refers to the God creating from nothing, this act of creation means that there was no material stuff. However, it does not assume that there were no causal conditions or potential. God’s will and power form the causal conditions to bring the universe into existence.

Self-created?

Could the universe have created itself? The term ‘created’ refers to something that emerged, and therefore it was once not in existence. Another way of speaking about something being created is that it was brought into being. All of these words imply something being finite, as all things that were created are finite. Understanding the concept of creation leads us to conclude that self-creation is a logical and practical impossibility. This is due to the fact that that self-creation implies that something was in existence and not in existence at the same time, which is impossible. Something that emerged means that it once was not in existence; however, to say that it created itself implies that it was in existence before it existed!

Consider the following question: Was it possible for your mother to give birth to herself? To claim such a thing would suggest that she would have to be born before she was born. When something is created, it means it once did not exist, and therefore had no power to do anything. So to claim that it created itself is impossible, as it could not have any power before it was created in order to create itself. This applies to all finite things, and that includes the universe too. Islamic scholar Al- Khattabi aptly summarises the fallacy of this argument: “This is [an] even more fallacious argument, because if something does not exist, how can it be described as having power, and how could it create anything? How could it do anything? If these two arguments are refuted, then it is established that they have a creator, so let them believe in Him.”[23]

Andrew Compson, the current chair of the British Humanist Association, once engaged in a public debate with me at the University of Birmingham. I presented the Qur’anic argument for God’s existence. His response to my assertion that self-creation is impossible was that self-creation can be found in single-celled organisms, also known in biology as asexual reproduction.

Andrew’s objection is false on a few grounds. Firstly, what he referred to in single-celled organisms is not self-creation but rather a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism and inherit the genetic material of that parent only. Secondly, if we logically extend his example to the universe, it assumes that the universe always existed, because for asexual reproduction to occur you need a parent that existed prior to the offspring. Therefore, his objection actually proves the point I was making; the universe once never existed, so it could not bring itself into existence.

You may be thinking that this objection is absurd, and it was not necessary to discuss it. I agree. However, I included this to show how unreasonable some atheist counter-arguments can be.

Created by something else that was created?

For argument sake, let’s answer “yes” to the following question: Was the universe created by something else created? Will that satisfy the questioner? Obviously not. The contentious person will undoubtedly ask, “Then, what created that thing?” If we were to answer, “Another created thing”, what do you think he would say? Yes, you guessed right: “What created that thing?” If this ridiculous dialogue continued forever, then it would prove one thing: the need for an uncreated creator.

Why? Because we cannot have the case of a created thing, like the universe, being created by another created thing in an unlimited series going back forever (known as an infinite regress of causes). It simply does not make sense. Consider the following examples:

Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot. HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from a higher-up. Subsequently, the higher-up seeks permission from the guy even higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, our example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. If that were the case this universe would not exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition.[24]

Imagine if a stock trader at the stock exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor. Once the stock trader asked his investor, he also had to check with his investor. Imagine if this went on forever. Would the stock trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. There must be an investor who gives the permission without requiring any permission himself. In similar light, if we apply this to the universe, we would have to posit a creator for the universe that is uncreated.

Once the above examples are applied to the universe directly, it will highlight the absurdity of the idea that the universe ultimately was created by something created. Consider if this universe, U1, was created by a prior cause, U2, and U2 was created by another cause, U3, and this went on forever. We wouldn’t have universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go on forever. If the ability of U1 to come into being was dependent on a forever chain of created universes, U1 would never exist.[25] As Islamic philosopher and scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes: “There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents… The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.”[26]

Created by something uncreated?

So, what is the alternative? The alternative is a first cause. In other words, an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator. The 11th century theologian and philosopher Al-Ghazali summarised the existence of an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator in the following way: “The same can be said of the cause of the cause. Now this can either go on ad infinitum, which is absurd, or it will come to an end.”[27]

What the above discussion is essentially saying is that something must have always existed. Now there are two obvious choices: God or the universe. Since the universe began and is dependent (see Chapter 6), it cannot have always existed. Therefore, something that always existed must be God. In the appendix to Professor Anthony Flew’s book There is a God, the philosopher Abraham Varghese explains this conclusion in a simple yet forceful way. He writes: “Now, clearly, theists and atheists can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Something always existed.”[28]

Thus, we can conclude that there exists an uncreated creator for everything that is created. The power of this argument is captured in the reaction of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم Jubayr ibn Mut’im. When he heard the relevant verses of the Qur’an addressing this argument he said, “my heart almost began to soar.”[29] The scholar Al-Khattabi said that the reason Jubayr was so moved by these verses was because of “the strong evidence contained therein touched his sensitive nature, and with his intelligence understood it.”[30]

The 18th century scholar Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi summarises that God created from nothing and provides supporting evidence from the authentic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ:

“Be informed that God has three attributes in relation to the bringing into being of the world, each presupposing the other. One of them is absolute origination which means bringing into being something from nothing, so that a thing comes out from the concealment of non-being without there being any matter. The Prophet of God, may the peace and blessing of God be upon him, was asked about the beginning of creation. He replied, ‘There was God and there was nothing before Him.’”[31]

What has been established so far is that there must be an uncreated creator. This does not imply the traditional concept of God. However, if we think carefully about the uncreated creator, we can form conclusions that lead to the traditional understanding of God.

Eternal

Since this creator is uncreated, it means that it was always in existence. Something that did not begin has always existed, and something that has always existed is eternal. The Qur’an makes this very clear: “God, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born.”[32]

Who created God?

A typical response to the eternality of the Divine is the outdated atheist cliché: Who created God? This childish contention is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the argument I have been elucidating in this chapter. There are two main responses to this objection.

Firstly, the third possibility that we discussed concerning how the universe came into being was: Could it be created by something created? We discussed that this was ultimately not possible because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes. The conclusion was simple: there must have been an uncreated creator. Being uncreated means God was not created. I have already presented a few examples to highlight this fact.

Secondly, once we have concluded that the best explanation for the emergence of the universe is the concept of God, it would be illogical to maintain that someone created Him. God created the universe and is not bound by its laws; He is, by definition, an uncreated Being, and He never came into existence. Something that never began cannot be created. Professor John Lennox explains these points in the following way:

“I can hear an Irish friend saying: ‘Well, it proves one thing- if they had a better argument, they would use it.’ If that is thought to be a rather strong reaction, just think of the question: Who made God? The very asking of it shows that the questioner has created God in mind. It is then scarcely surprising that one calls one’s book The God Delusion. For that is precisely what a created god is, a delusion, virtually by definition—as Xenophanes pointed out centuries before Dawkins. A more informative title might have been: The Created-God Delusion. The book could then have been reduced to a pamphlet—but sales might just have suffered… For the God who created and upholds the universe was not created—He is eternal. He was not ‘made’ and therefore subject to the laws that science discovered; it was he who made the universe with its laws. Indeed, the fact constitutes the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. The universe came to be, God did not.”[33]

Transcendent

This uncreated creator cannot be part of creation. A useful example to illustrate this is when a carpenter makes a chair. In the process of designing and creating the chair, he does not become the chair. He is distinct from the chair. This applies to the uncreated creator as well. He created the universe and therefore is distinct from what He created. The theologian and scholar Ibn Taymiyya argued that the term, “created”, implied that something was distinct from God.[34]

If the creator was part of creation it would make Him contingent or dependent with limited physical qualities. This, in turn, would mean that He would require an explanation for His existence, which would imply He cannot be God (see Chapter 6).

The Qur’an affirms the transcendence of God. It says, “There is nothing like unto Him.”[35]

Knowing

This uncreated creator must have knowledge because the universe that He created has established laws. These include the law of gravity, the weak and strong nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force (see Chapter 8). These laws imply there is a lawgiver, and a lawgiver implies knowledge. The Qur’an says, “Indeed God is, of all things, Knowing.”[36]

Powerful

This uncreated creator must be powerful because He created the universe, and the universe has immense energy, both usable and potential. Take, for instance, the number of atoms in the observable universe, which is around 1080.[37] If you were to take just one of these atoms and split it, it would release an immense amount of energy—known as nuclear fission. A created thing with usable and potential energy could not have acquired that from itself. Ultimately, it came from the Creator, who in turn must be powerful.

If the creator did not have power, it would mean that He is unable, incapable and weak. Since the universe was created, it is a simple proof that He must have ability and power. Now just imagine the immense power of the Creator by reflecting on the universe and all that it contains. The Qur’an asserts the power of God:

“God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things.”[38]

The omnipotence paradox

The Islamic position regarding God’s ability is summed up in the following creedal statement found in The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi. It states, “He is Omnipotent. Everything is dependent on Him, and every affair is effortless for Him.”[39]

However, a common objection to God’s power is the omnipotence paradox. This concerns the ability of an All-Powerful Being to limit its power. The question that is raised is: If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone He cannot move?

To answer this question, the meaning of ‘omnipotence’ needs to be clarified. What it implies is the ability to realise every possible affair. Omnipotence also includes the impossibility of failure. The questioner, however, is saying that since God is All-Powerful, He is capable of anything, including failure. This is irrational and absurd, as it is equivalent to saying “an All-Powerful Being cannot be an All-Powerful Being”. Failure to achieve or do something is not a feature of omnipotence. From this perspective, the ability of God to “create a stone He cannot move” actually describes an event that is impossible and meaningless.

The question does not describe a possible affair, just as if we were to say “a white black crow” or “a circle triangle”. Such statements describe nothing at all; they have no informative value and are meaningless. So why should we even answer a question that has no meaning? To put it bluntly, the question is not even a question.

In his discussion of the Qur’anic verse, “God has power over all things”,[40] classical scholar Al-Qurtubi explains that God’s power refers to every possible state of affairs: “This [verse] is general… it means that it is permitted to describe God with the attribute of power. The community agree that God has the name The-Powerful… God has power over every possibility whether it is brought into existence or remains non-existent.”[41]

To conclude, God can create a stone that is heavier than anything we can imagine, but He will always be able to move the stone because failure is not a feature of omnipotence.[42]

Will

This uncreated creator must have a will for a number of reasons.

Firstly, since this creator is eternal and brought into existence a finite universe, it must have chosen the universe to come into existence. This creator must have chosen the universe to come into existence when the universe was non-existent and could have remained so. Something that has a choice obviously has a will.

Secondly, the universe contains beings that have a conscious will and volition. Therefore, the one who created the universe with living beings that have a will must also have a will. One cannot give something to a thing that one does not have (or give rise to something that one does not contain). Therefore, the Creator has a will.

Thirdly, there are two types of explanations we can apply to the creation of the universe. The first is a scientific explanation, and the second is a personal one. Let me explain this using tea. In order to make tea, I have to boil some water, place the tea bag in the cup and allow it to infuse. This process can be explained scientifically. The water must be 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) before it reaches boiling point, it has to travel across a semipermeable membrane (tea bag), and I have to use my glycogen stores to enable my muscles to contract to move my limbs to ensure all of this takes place. Obviously, a trained scientist could go into further detail, but I think you get the point. Conversely, the whole process can also be explained personally: the tea has been made because I wanted some tea. Now let’s apply this to the universe. We do not have observations or empirical evidence on how the Creator created the universe; we can only rely on a personal explanation, which is that God chose for the universe to come into existence. Even if we had a scientific explanation, it would not negate a personal one, as shown in the tea example.[43]

The Qur’an affirms the fact that God has a will: “Your Lord carries out whatever He wills.”[44] Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali presents an eloquent summary of the implications of God having a will. He asserts that everything that happens is due to God’s will and nothing can escape it:

“We attest that He is the Willer of all things that are, the ruler of all originated phenomena; there does not come into the visible or invisible world anything meager or plenteous, small or great, good or evil, or any advantage or disadvantage, belief or unbelief, knowledge or ignorance, success or failure, increase or decrease, obedience or disobedience, except by His will. What He wills is, and what He does not, will not; there is not a glance of the eye, nor a stray thought of the heart that is not subject to His will. He is the Creator, the Restorer, the Doer of whatsoever He wills. There is none that rescinds His command, none that supplements His decrees, none that dissuades a servant from disobeying Him, except by His help and mercy, and none has power to obey Him except by His will.”[45]

Although there are some objections to the argument presented in this chapter, they do not qualify as defeaters. This means that even if these objections could not be responded to, the argument would still maintain its rational force. Nevertheless, there are some questions that challenge this argument, including: If the Creator of the universe is eternal, why did the universe begin to exist when it did instead of existing from eternity? If God is maximally perfect and transcendent, what caused Him to create at all? Does God require creation in order to possess attributes of perfection? These questions have been intelligently addressed in a paper entitled The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Divine Creative Agency and Purpose.[46]

In this chapter we have seen that the Qur’an provides an intuitive and powerful argument for God’s existence. Since the universe is finite, it had a beginning. If it began, then it can be explained as coming from nothing, creating itself, being ultimately created by something created or being created by something uncreated. The rational answer is that it the universe was brought into being by an uncreated creator who is transcendent, knowing, powerful and has a will. This creator must also be uniquely one, but that will be discussed in Chapter 10.

The argument of this chapter relies on the fact that the universe must be finite. However, the following argument shows that even if the universe did not have a beginning, it still necessitates God’s existence.

After yet another anniversary of the abolishment of the Khilafah state it is important for us to reflect upon its history and the reaction of the Muslims towards its demise and eventual destruction. It is assumed by some that the Muslims and their scholars did not react to the call for the abolishment of Khilafah and that they did not realise its significance. This is untrue, history is a testament to the reaction of the Muslims, their struggle to maintain it and their pain at the eventual removal of the shade of Allah (swt) from the earth. The example of the Muslims of India and its renowned Khilafat Movement demonstrates this.

Before elaborating upon the reaction of the Muslims in India, it is important to understand the background of how the Islamic rule reached Indian subcontinent which is now home to approximately half the Islamic Ummah numbering more than half a billion Muslims, with approximately 250 million Muslims in India, 160 million in Pakistan and 120 million in Bangladesh. Indeed Urdu has now become probably the most widely spoken language of the Ummah, even more widespread than Arabic.

History of the Khilafah in India

In the year 711CE, Muslim traders were sailing in the Indian Ocean from Ceylon near the coast of Sind. However, the ship was looted and the Muslims were captured and imprisoned. The news reached the capital of the Islamic Khilafah state. Where the Khalifah al-Walid b. ‘Abdul Malik heard about this. Then he sent a message to Hujjaj b. Yusuf, the Wali (governor) of Baghdad to demand the apologies from the ruler of Sind and rescue the Muslims. An army was dispatched lead by one of the most brilliant sons of this Ummah. The name of this youthful figure occupies a very high position in the hearts of the Muslims especially of the Indian subcontinent. It was upon the shoulders of this man that fell the responsibilities of leading the Islamic Khilafah army into a foreign land. The name of this man was Muhammad b. Qasim al-Thaqafi, the opener of bilad al hind.

When the Islamic Khilafah state army reached Debal (near modern day Karachi), Muhammad b. Qasim and presented his demands to Raja Dahir. The Raja resisted the demand and thus, was inevitably defeated by the Muslims and his kingdom captured.

After this, Muhammad b. Qasim followed up his initial success with further encounters because it is the duty of Muslims to make the word of Allah ‘azza wa jall the highest. The Islamic Army, driven by the Islamic Aqeedah, penetrated as far as Multan. Within three years, by 714 CE, the whole of Sind and lower Punjab were brought under the rule of the Islamic Khilafah.

In the conquest of the north-western part of the subcontinent of India, the army took the idol worshippers from darkness into the light of Islam. His administration made no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. In the conquered territories he reinstated non-Muslim officials to their former positions.

Muhammad b. Qasim told the administrators of the Khilafah, “Deal honestly between people and the State. Fix taxes according to the ability of the people to pay.”

It was during the time of Khalifah Hisham b. ‘Abdul Malik from 724 to 743 CE that the Khilafah State conquered the regions of Kashmir and Kangra. And during 754-75 under the ‘Abbasid Khalifah Abu Ja’far Al-Mansur, Kandahar was opened and efforts were made to consolidate and spread the frontiers of the Khilafah state in the Indian subcontinent. It was between 786 and 809 CE, during the Khilafah of Harun ar-Rashid that the Islamic Army extended the frontiers of Sind westwards into Gujarat (now presently in India). It was during this time that Muslim soldiers settled down and new cities started to flourish. From this time onwards, large numbers of the Indians were lifted from their baseless social caste structures of disbelief and brought under the shade of global brotherhood. They were guided from the darkness of ignorance and Kufr to the Nur of Islam, worshipping Allah ‘azza wa jall and discarding their false idol gods. Islam ruled over most of what is known today as India, Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh for over a thousand years.

Contrary to how the Orientalists portray the history of India, we must realise that it was a Wilayah of the Khilafah. Due to negligence of some of the Khulafah it was unsupervised in some periods and left to run by itself. However the ahkam shariah were applied by the rulers and it was part of Dar al-Islam until the British colonised it.

The Muslim historians like Ibn Kathir al-Damishqi (died 774 AH) in his famous work al-Bidayah wan-Nihaya mentioned India as part of Dar al-Islam, he also quoted some ahadith about its conquest. Abu Huraira (ra) narrated: “My true friend, Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said, “The armies of this Ummah will be sent to Sindh and India.” If I get the opportunity to participate in it and am martyred then that is one (auspicious) thing, and if I return then I will be the free Abu Hurayrah. The Exalted Lord would have given me freedom from Hell.” [Ahmad]

India remained as a province of the Khilafah throughout the Delhi Sultanate (1205-1526 CE) and Mughal period (1526-1857 CE) except during Akbar’s rule (1556-1605 CE) as he apostatised from Islam and formed a new religion called Deen-e-Illahi.

During the last quarter of the twelfth century, Muhammad of Ghor invaded the Indo-Gangetic plain, conquering in succession Ghazni, Multan, Sindh, Lahore, and Delhi. Qutb-ud-din Aybak, one of his generals became Sultan of Delhi. In the 13th century, Shams ud din Iltumish (1211-1236), a former slave-warrior of a Turkic origin came to power in Delhi, which enabled future sultans to push in every direction; within the next 100 years, what became known as the Delhi Sultanate extended its way east to Bengal and south to the Deccan. The sultanate was ruled by five dynasties who rose and fell: the Slave dynasty (1206-90), Khalji dynasty (1290-1320), Tughlaq dynasty (1320-1413), Sayyid dynasty (1414-51), and Lodi dynasty (1451-1526).

Babur, who originated from Central Asia, took over Delhi in 1526 and became the first of the Mughal rulers. After his death in 1530, his son Humayun (1530-56) came to power. According to a document available in the State Library of Bhopal, Babur left the following will to Humayun, it demonstrates that regardless of his flaws he cared for the implementation of Islam in a just manner:

“My son take note of the following: Do not harbour religious prejudice in your heart. You should dispense justice while taking note of the people’s religious sensitivities, and rites. Avoid slaughtering cows in order that you could gain a place in the heart of natives. This will take you nearer to the people.

Do not demolish or damage places of worship of any faith and dispense full justice to all to ensure peace in the country. Islam can better be preached by the sword of love and affection, rather than the sword of tyranny and persecution. Avoid the differences between the Shias and Sunnis. Look at the various characteristics of your people just as characteristics of various seasons.”

We have to be careful where we take our history from as much of the history of India and the Islamic rule was written by the Orientalists. We do admit that some of the Muslim rulers of India misapplied some of the Islamic rules and committed some injustices. However under their rule the Indian sub-continent remained part of Dar al-Islam (land of Islam) as the Islamic system was implemented. The court records which still exist in some of the major cities show that there was no other source of law referred to other than the Islamic Shariah. Misapplication does not nullify a Khalifah’s rule as well as a Wali’s (governor) or an Amil’s (mayor). There are many ahadith that establish the obligation of obedience to the rulers even if they are oppressive as long as they do not commit Kufr Bu’ah (open disbelief) and implement the Shariah.

Anas b. Malik reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Do hear and obey, even if you were ruled by an Abyssinian slave, whose hair is like the raisin”. In another narration He ﷺ said: “As long as he leads you by the Book of Allah.”

Muslim reported from ‘Auf b. Malik who reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and you pray for them and they pray for you; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.” We asked: “O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?” He ﷺ said: “No! As long as they establish prayer among you. Behold if anyone was ruled by a Wali and saw him committing a sin, let him hate the sin committed against Allah, but let him not withdraw his hand from obedience.”

Ahmad and Abu Dawud reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “O Abu Dharr, what would you do if some Walis possessed the booty and deprived you of it?” He said: “By He Who sent you with the Truth, I would raise my sword and fight until I join you.” Upon this he ﷺ said: “Let me tell you something that would be better for you than that. Remain patient and bear it until you join me.”

The fact that India remained as part of the global Khilafah has also been discussed by non-Muslim authors such as the Hindu author Shashi S. Sharma in his book ‘Caliphs and Sultans – Religious ideology and political praxis’ admits this. He says:

“Throughout its existence the Delhi Sultanate (1205-1526), remained a legal part of the worldwide Muslim empire functioning under the de jure suzerainty of the Abbasid caliphs. Sultans considered themselves the deputies of the caliph and derived their validity of their administrative and legal authority only on the basis of delegation. Since the supreme authority of the community legally remained with the caliph, every king and potentate claimed to exercise governmental power for, and on behalf of the Imam of Islam.” [Shashi S. Sharma, Caliphs and Sultans – Religious ideology and political praxis, pg. 247]

“Muhammad Shah Bahamani III (1463-82), paid tributes to the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II as the one deserving to be the Khalifah. The kingdom of Bijapur adopted the Turkish (Uthmani) symbol as its royal emblem. Malik Ayaz, one of he leading nobles of Gujarat addressed Sultan Salim I as ‘Khalifah on earth’. Subtle evidences of the great esteem in which Mughal rulers held the Sultan of Turkey can also be gleaned from the few correspondences that flew between Delhi and Istanbul…In a letter to Sultan Suleiman, Humayun (ruler of India) addressed him as the ‘Khalifah of the highest qualities’ and prayed for eternal perpetuation of his caliphate. He quotes a Quranic verse to indicate to the Sultan that ‘He (God) has sent thee as the Khalifah on the earth’…Sultan Ibrahim sent a letter to Shahjahan in which he proclaimed himself as the ‘Refuge and asylum of the monarchs of the world’ who has been bestowed the good fortune to occupy the throne of Khilafat. Ahmad Aqa, the Turkish envoy brought a missive from his Sultan to the court of Aurangzeb in 1690 which was thick with Quranic quotations and references to the Sultan as the Khalifah of Islam. In 1723, Muhammad Shah (1719-1748) resumed Mughal correspondence with the Porte in Istanbul. In his letter, Muhammad Shah styles the Sultan ‘the asylum of the greatest Sultans’, ‘the protector of the most honoured kings’, the ‘adorner of the exalted throne of Khilafat’, and the ‘spreader of the precepts of shariat’”. [Shashi S. Sharma, Caliphs and Sultans – Religious ideology and political praxis, pg. 248-249]

Certain antiquities also show the link between the Khilafah and India. For example silver coins at Sultan Shamsuddin Altamash’s (1211-36) time who was the Wali of India bore the name of the Khalifah Al-Mustansir on one side and on the other side his own as helper of the Khilafah.

Even after the sack of Baghdad in 1258 CE which resulted in the death of the Khalifah Al-Mustasim, coins in India bore his name.

India also gave birth to great scholars under the Islamic rule like Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi
(died in Delhi, 1624 CE), also known as Mujaddid Alf Thani. He was well known as a scholar of Fiqh, he wrote 536 letters collectively entitled ‘Collected Letters’ or ‘Maktubat’, to the Ottoman rulers conveying his ideas.

Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703-1762 CE) is one of the most respected Ulema of India and is accepted and revered by all the various groups and schools of thought in South Asia and beyond. He was a prolific writer who wrote extensively on several Islamic topics. His works include an instrumental and one of the earliest translations of the Qur’an from Arabic into Urdu, as well as one into Sanskrit, contrary to the will of many of his Muslim contemporaries who believed that the Quran should be left in its original language. Later Indian Islamic scholars, however, accepted such efforts and rather than criticise this, they welcomed it. Other famous works of his include Hujjat al-Balagha amd Al-Tafheemat al-Ilahia. Shah Waliullah wrote about the Khilafah in his work, ‘Izalat al Khafa’ he said that, “Khilafah is the leadership of people united in a commonwealth which comes into existence for the establishment of the Deen including revival of religious branches of learning, institution of Islamic ritual observances, organization of jihad… marshalling an army, remunerating the combatants, creating a judicial system and enforcing the laws, curbing of crimes… All these functions have to be performed by it as if it were deputising and representing the Prophet ﷺ.”

The permission of Wilaya Amma (General governorship) in Islam

The Indian sub-continent was given Wilaya Amma (General governorship) by the Khulafah which is an acceptable form of Governership according to the Shariah rules. It is true that the Khulafah became negligent in their responsibilities of inquiring about the Wilayat (provinces) and directly appointing and removing the governors, it became a norm for them to accept whoever came to power in different provinces rather than directly select them. Nevertheless the fact that they accepted them means that their authority was validated by the Khalifah.

The following is an explanation of the two types of Wilayah along with the Islamic evidences for this from the english translation of the book ‘The Ruling System in Islam’ by Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani and Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom:

“The Wali (Governor) is the deputy of the Khaleefah; he performs what the Khaleefah authorises him to do on his behalf. According to Shar’a, the Wilayah has no specific limit, thus any body appointed by the Khaleefah to act on his behalf over any matter of ruling would be a Waali in that matter in accordance with the terms the Khaleefah used in his appointment. However, the Wilayah over countries is geographically specified, because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to specify the area over which he appointed the Wali, i.e. where he invests the Ameer with the Imarah.

There are two types of Wilayah: general and specific. The general one includes all the ruling matters within the Wilayah. Appointing someone to that Wilayah would mean that the Khaleefah delegates to the Wali the Imara of a country or a province, as a Wilayah over all its people for supervising all the normal functions. Thus he would have a general responsibility of supervision. As for the specific Imara, this means that the Ameer would be restricted to running the armed forces, governing the citizens, protecting the territories, or defending the women and children in that country or province. He does not have a say in the judiciary or the collecting of Kharaj and Sadaqah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed Walis with general responsibilities (Wilayah ‘Amma) , such as when he appoimted ‘Amru b.Hazm over Yemen. He also appointed Walis with specific functions (Wilayah Khassa), such as when he appointed Ali b. Abi Talib over the judiciary in Yemen. The Khulafa’a followed in the Messenger of Allah’s ﷺ footsteps. ‘Umar Ibnul-Khattab appointed Mu’aiwya b. Abi Sufyan as general Wali over Ash-Sham, while Ali b.Abi Talib appointed Abdullah b. Abbas over Basra with restrictive powers (Wilayah Khassa) to run all the affairs except for the funds, which was assigned to Ziad

There used to be two types of Wilayah in the early times: The Wilayah of Salah and the Wilayah of Kharaj. Therefore we find that history books use two terms in their reference to the Wilayah of Ameers: The first is the Imara over the Salah and the other the Imara over the Salah and the Kharaj. In other words the Ameer could either be appointed over both the Salah and the Kharaj, or over the Salah only. The word Salah, in the context of the Wilayah or the Imara, does not mean only leading the people in their prayer, but it means governing all their affairs except the funds. This is because the word Salah is used to mean ruling except for the levy of funds. Therefore, if the Wali had combined both the Salah and the Kharaj, his Wilayah would then be general (Wilayah ‘Amma). If his Wilayah had been restricted to the Salah or the Kharaj, his Wilayah would then be specific (Wilayah Khassa). Either way, this would be left to the Khaleefah’s own arrangements, as he reserves the right to restrict the Wilayah to the Kharaj, or to the judiciary, or he could confine the Wilayah to other than the Kharaj, the judiciary and the army. He could do what he deems best for the running of the province or the Wilayah. This is because Shar’a has not determined for the Wali certain duties, and it is not obliged that he should perform all the duties of ruling. It has, however, determined that the Wali’s or the Ameer’s duties be ruling and authority, and that he is the deputy of the Khaleefah, and he should be an Ameer over a specific area. All this is derived from the actions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. However Shar’a entitles the Khaleefah to appoint a Wali as either a general Wilayah (‘Amma) or a specific one (Khassa) according to his own discretion, and all this is reflected in the actions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

It was mentioned in the Seerah of ibn Hisham that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed Farwa b. Musayk over the tribes of Murad, Zubair and Mizhaj. He sent Khalid b. Sa’eed b. Al-‘Ass with him as Wali over the Sadaqah.

It also mentioned that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent Ziad b. Labeed Al-Ansari as a Wali over Hadhramawt and its Sadaqah. He also sent ‘Ali b. Abi Talib to Najran to collect their Sadaqah and their Jizya. He also sent him, as a judge over Yemen ,as reported by Al-Haakim.

In the book of Isti’aab it is mentioned that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent Mu’az b. Jabal to Al-Janad to teach the people about the Quran, the laws of Islam and to judge between them. He authorised him as well to collect the Sadaqah from the ‘Amils in Yemen. The Seerah of ibn Hisham also reports that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed ibn Umm Maktum over the salah in Al-Madinah when he went out for Uhud.” [The Ruling System in Islam, Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani & Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, Al-Khilafah Publications]

British invasion of India & the reaction of Muslims

As a result of the constant devilish conspiracies by the Colonialists and an intellectual decline in the Muslim Ummah at large, the Kafireen began to see their desired opportunity to dominate over the Indian sub-Continent. In 1600 CE the East India Company was established by the British. It was the beginning of a painful era where the British and other European colonialists looted the lands and pillaged the resources of the Ummah, they also ignited flames of hatred between the Muslim and non-Muslim citizens.

The British invaded the Indian subcontinent in 1819, where it was faced with strong resistance from the Muslims. The war continued with alternate success between the Islamic authority in the subcontinent and invading Britain with the help of some kufr forces of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. Britain could not achieve stability and control over it except after 27 years of vigorous wars with the Muslims, i.e. in 1846.

During this period as the authority of the Mughal Wilayah was weakening over different parts of India, some of the rulers of other parts started to seek support and legitimacy from the Khalifah in Istanbul. For example, the Queen of Cannore sent a diplomatic message to Sultan Abdul Hamid I in 1779, in which she “petitioned the Khalifah to protect her against the aggression of the English East India Company”. Tipu Sultan of Mysore sought and received a letter of recognition from the Khalifah that recognised him as the ruler of Mysore.

British executing Muslims by cannon during the 1857 jihad.

After the British colonialists removed the Islamic rule from India the Muslims remained loyal to the Khalifah in Istanbul. Some continued the Jihad against them like the famous Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed. Other Ulema continued to agitate and organise the Jihad against the colonialists especially those in Yaghestan (usually referred to the Pushtoon tribal belt of the eastern half of Afghanistan, comprising of Herat, Kandahar, Zabul, Ghazni and Kabul during the British rule in India).

An Ottoman book, listing the donations of Indian Muslims to the Ottoman Khilafat during the Russo-Turkish War, 1878

When the Greco-Turkish war ended in favour of the Uthmani Khilafah, the Muslims of India rejoiced and held a formal meeting in Lucknow under the leadership of Maulana Abdul Bari to felicitate the Sultan. However when the Khilafah received setbacks in the Balkan and Tripolitan wars, the Muslims were in uproar against the Western powers attempt to weaken the Khilafah.

Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar, one of the undisputed activists who supported the Khilafah and was also known for his anti-British stance had just returned from Britain after completing his graduation from Lincoln College. In 1914, he wrote the thirty-six hour sitting editorial ‘The choice of Turks’ as a reply to the article that appeared in London Times. When the Balkan Wars began in 1912, he appealed for funds in aid of Turkish victims and also sent a medical mission.

Sheikh ul-Hind, Maulana Mahmood Hasan, the head of Daral Uloom Deoband, the most well known Islamic University in India worked tirelessly to collect money to send to the Khilafah to help in the Balkan and Tripoli wars. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani wrote about him: “The bloody war in the Balkans and Tripoli had created a sad effect on the mind and heart of Maulana Mahmood Hasan. This led him to tread the path set by his predecessor, Maulana Qasim Nanautvi (who was the co-founder of Dar al Uloom Deoband and had cooperated with the Khalifah during the Soviet-Turkish war). Maulana Mahmood Hasan devoted himself to the cause of Islam and extended all possible help to the Ottoman Empire. He issued a Fatwa to close down Daral Uloom Deoband, collected donations for the Ottoman Empire, send student delegations to Turkey, himself leading one delegation. He, however was not satisfied with the help he had provided to the Ottoman Empire. The main reason was the outcome of the Balkan war that completely unnerved Muslim visionaries like him. They knew that the Whites of Europe were conspiring to extinguish the light emanating from the candle of Islam. Moreover, the treachery of British rulers such as Mr. Squibb, atrocities committed upon Muslims by Russia and the division of Turkey had strengthened the belief that the time had come for the Whites to accomplish the long cherished dreams of Gladstone.” [Naqsh-e-Hayat, Vol. 2, pg. 140]

During the First World War, mosques in India rang with fervent prayers whose Khutba would invoke the benediction of Allah for the well-being of the Sultan and the success of his armies in their effort to destroy the forces of Kufr. When Maulana Shaukat Ali, another great personality was asked why he read the Khutba in the name of the Sultan of Turkey, he replied: “you can’t blame me if he Caliph of Islam also happens to be the Sultan of Turkey”. [The Khilafat Movement, Gail Minault, Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 55]

The Khilafah acknowledged the efforts of the Muslims of India and asked them to aid it and rebel against the British.

The Arabic newspaper of the Khilafah called ‘Aljawait’ was published in Istanbul, its capital. The manager of ‘Aljawait’ issued a complimentary copy for the students of Daral Uloom Deoband in India, which was eight thousand miles away from Istanbul. [Sawaneh Qasmi, Vol 2, p. 329]

Sheikh ul Hind Maulana Mahmud Hasan mentioned earlier directly supported the Khilafah and worked hard for its maintenance. He travelled to Hijaz where he met the Wali (governor) of the Khilafah in Makkah and the assistants of the Khalifah. The Wali gave documents to the Sheikh to help in the struggle of the Muslims of India against the tyranny of the British. The foremost of these documents was an appeal from the Wali to the Muslims of India. In his appeal, the Wali of Makkah praised Sheikh ul Hind for launching the struggle against the colonial British rule and also exhorted Muslims of India to extend their full support. He also assured the Muslims of India of material support from this movement from the Khilafah. The document written by the Governor of Makkah is known in history as Ghalib Namah. After performing Hajj in 1334 AH, the Sheikh also met with Anwar Pasha and Jamal Pasha, who were officials of the Khilafah. Anwar Pasha also wrote a letter of appeal for the Muslims of India, appreciating their constant struggle against the British tyranny. The wording of the letter was similar to the Ghalib Namah, assuring the material support of the Uthmani Khilafah to the Muslims of India in their struggle against the British. The letter also exhorted all citizens and employees of the Uthmani Khilafah to have full confidence in Sheikh ul Hind and provide material support to his movement. Copies of these letters were made, smuggled into India in the face of all the challenges posed by the British intelligence services and later distributed in the whole of Yaghestan. [The Prisoners of Malta (Asira’n-e-Malta), Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian, Jamiat Ulama -I-Hind]

The Muslims of India were aware of the treachery of Sharif Hussain and his rebellion backed by the British, they protested strongly against cutting of food supplies to Hijaz by the British.

“In spite of all propaganda of Colonel T.E. Lawrence, including his enchanting and emotional speeches in Arabic and secret agreement between Sharif Hussain and Sir Henry MacMahon, ordinary residents of Hijaz were not interested in revolting against the Turks. To achieve this goal, the British government resorted to a very inhuman and barbaric tactic. Sheikh ul Islam Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani has described it in the following words: ‘Food supplies to Hijaz were cut off. The last consignment of food shipment to Hijaz reached in the month of Safar 1334 AH. Since the food supplies were completely cut off, prices soared and people began to starve. Due to the protest of Indian Muslims, Fairozi Aganboat sailed from Calcutta with a few thousand sacks of rice in the month of Jamadi Al-Saani 1334 Hijri. That too was forcefully offloaded at the port of Aden. It was allowed to reach Jeddah only after the political influence of the Ottoman Empire had completely diminished from Hijaz.’” [The Prisoners of Malta (Asira’n-e-Malta), Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, English edition, p. 45]

Sheikh ul Hind, Maulana Mahmood Hasan, the head of Daral Uloom Deoband who was mentioned earlier was imprisoned by the British in Malta for 3 years due to him sticking to the truth and not disowning the Uthmani Khilafah. The British wanted him to issue a Fatwa disowning the Uthmani Khilafah and supporting Sharif Hussain. Shaikhul Hind was arrested by the traitor Sharif Hussain in Hijaz (Makkah) on 23 Safar, 1335 A.H. He and other Ulema were sent to Malta via Cairo by a ship on 29 Rabius Thani 1335 A.H. corresponding to 21 February 1917. The other Indian Ulema included Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, Maulana Aziz Gul, Maulana Hakeem Nusrat Hussain and Maulana Waheed Ahmad who were all clamped in the prison by the British. Maulana Mahmood Hasan remained in prison for 3 years and 4 months. He was released and reached Bombay on June 8, 1920. This time of returning from Malta synchronized with the period of the beginning of the Khilafat Movement in India. [The Prisoners of Malta (Asira’n-e-Malta), Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian, Jamiat Ulama -I-Hind]

Nizaratul Maarif (The Academy of Quran Learning) was established in the year 1321 AH, headed by the Mujahid, Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi, its aim was to develop Muslim intellectuals to counter anti-Islamic propaganda and promote the Islamic thought. The British realised the threat it posed, this can be seen by the report entitled ‘The petition of the British Queen vs Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi’ by Central Intelligence Department (C.I.D) of the British government, it states:

“Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi could not use Darul Ulomom Deoband as a training camp for his missionaries (Mujahideen). He therefore decided to establish a Madrasa (Nizaratul Maarif) in Delhi to achieve this purpose…As is evident from its name, the Madrasa was established to interpret the Qur’an and its teachings in a correct perspective. It also taught the Arabic language. ” [The petition of the British Queen vs Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi, Section 17]

“Besides these teachings which Nizaratul Maarif used to impart, what was unlawful, it also used to be a secret meeting place for the conspirators.” [The petition of the British Queen vs Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi, Section 20]

The British were referring to the fact that Nizaratul Maarif became a meeting point and centre for Muslim revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow the British governments rule in India. These included Hakim Ajmal Khan, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.

The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the“caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.

The Khilafat Movement

In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.

In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”

Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.

Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.

In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.

According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.

The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British.

Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.

The question of Khilafah was not only a political question but a matter of ‘redemption or damnation’. If Turkey lost her territory, Islam as an ideology, would be in danger. Maulana Shaukat Ali gave voice to this sentiment in his presidential speech in the tenth session of All India Khilafat Conference on 27 December 1923, “So long as one inch of the Jazirat-ul Arab is under non-Muslim influence, a Muslim cannot have peace of Mind”. [The Indian Muslims, Shan Muhammad, Meenakshi Prakashan, 1981, Vol. VII; p.209]

The Islamic obligation of having a Khalifah was underlined by Mohammed Asaf Ali in a letter written to the editor of Comrade on 2 November 1921, “the prestige of Turkey is Synonymous with the prestige of Islam, and the existence of the Ottomon Empire is essential for the secular (i.e. temporal) progress of the Moslem races…Islam as a civilizing force will disappear with the dissolution of the Ottomon empire…If Turkey falls, Islam cannot stand. Turkey is, therefore, the back bone of Islam”. This view point was supported by Maulana Muhammad Ali who averred that such a position also reflected the general opinion of the common Muslim.

The meeting of the Anjuman Moid-ul-Islam held under the aegis of the Firangi Mahal at Lucknow on January 26, 1919 resolved: “That this meeting of the Ulemas of Firangi Mahel, while expressing its firm and sincere devotion to Sultan Mohammed VI, emphatically declares that according to the true doctrines of Islam, none but the present Sultan of Turkey is the rightful Caliph and that Islam never allows the interference of non-Muslims in deciding the question of Caliphate”.

In fact, many scholars at that time like Syed Sulaiman Nadvi emphasised the obligation of the having a Khalifah. Maulana Nadvi states that “..Allama Nasfi, Imam Razi, Qazi Uzud, among other eminent authorities, deal with the subjects exhaustively in their books and should be considered final authorities on the point. An authentic tradition of the Prophet in Sahi Muslim explicitly declares that if a Mussulman dies without acknowledging the Imam of his times he dies the death of a Kafiri”. [The Muslim Outlook, March 1920]

Maulana Muhammed Ali in a speech delivered by him in Paris in 1920: “The Khilafat is the most essential institution of the Muslim community throughout the world. A vast majority of the Muslims in the world recognize the Sultan of Turkey to be the Commander of the Faithful, and the successor of the Khalifa of their prophet. It is an essential part of this doctrine that the Khalifa, the Commander of the Faithfull, should have adequate territories, adequate military and naval resources, adequate financial resources”.

Syed Hussain, who was sharing the podium with Muhammed Ali in the Paris meeting said: “If Islam is to exist in the world, then it is absolutely necessary that Islam should have a Caliphate. That has been the history and tradition of Islam ever since its foundation fourteen hundred years ago”.

Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar also stated: “The ruler of Turkey was the Khalifah or successor of the Prophet and Amir -ul- Mu’mineen or chief of the believers and the Khilafah is as essentially our religious concern as the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet.” [My Life a Fragment, Mohammed Ali Johar, pg.41]

In fact the Ulema took a leading role in the Khilafat movement. The following are some key points from a declaration made at a conference held for the UIema in India on 5th & 6th April 1920, in which many Ulema attended:

– Point 1 of the declaration: The Ulema must work to establish a public opinion for the issue of Khilafah.
– Point 2: The hypocrite (munafiq) scholars and those scholars against this issue must be boycotted.
– Point 7: The Ulema must obtain an oath from their followers that they will exert their lives and hearts by speaking and writing in support of the issue of Khilafah.
– Point 9: Muslims must keep away from the constitutional elections.

The following are some points from the declaration made at the 2nd All India Conference of Jamiat al Ulema Hind, held on 19 & 20th November 1920 in Delhi also demonstrate their support for the issue of Khilafah:

– The English are the biggest enemy of Islam and the Muslims and to oppose them is Fard.
– Protecting the Ummah and protecting the Khilafah is a pure Islamic need. If brothers in this country help and cooperate for this issue, many thanks to them for this.

Sheikh ul-Hind, Maulana Mahmood Hasan, the head of Dar al-Ulum Deoband who was mentioned earlier was released from prison and returned to Bombay on 20th of Ramadhan 1338 AH, corresponding to June 8th 1920. Upon his return he actively participated in the Khilafat movement. His successor, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani wrote, “After bearing hardships of the prison and exile when Hazrat Shaeikul Hind Rahmatullah Alaih returned to India, we found no change in his spirit to fight the colonial regime and his hatred towards the British. The imposition of martial law in the country, the implementation of the Rawlatt Act and the Jalianawala Bagh massacre within the country, and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, and the inhuman behaviour with the Turks outside India upset him. The moment he set foot in Bombay, he met Maulana Shaukat Ali and other members of the Khilafat Committee. Maulana Abdul Bari from Firangi Mahal, Lucknow, and Mahatma Ghandi from Ahmedabad came to receive Shaikhul Hind Maulana Mahmood Hasan in Bombay. Having talked to them and other leaders of the Khilafat Committee in open and seclusion, Shaikhul Hind too approved the launching of the ‘Non-violence’ movement to liberate India.” [Naqsh-e-Hayat, Vol 2, p.247]

The text of one of the fatwa’s of the Sheikh demonstrates his view of the Khilafah towards co-operating with the colonialists. Even though it was issues in 1920, many of the points he mentioned are still applicable today. He said:

“The enemies of Islam have left no stone unturned to strike against and harm the honour and prestige of Islam. Iraq, Palestine and Syria that were won over by the Prophet’s companions and his followers, after innumerous sacrifices, have once again become the targets of greed of the enemy of Islam. The honour of Khilafat is in tatters. Khalifat-ul-Muslimin (Muslim Caliph), who used to unite the entire community on this planet; who as vice-regent of Allah on this earth used to implement the universal law of Islam; who used to protect the rights and interests of Muslims and who used to preserve and ensure that the glory of the words of the Creator of this universe be preserved and implemented, has been surrounded by the enemies and made redundant…The flag of Islam is flying low today. The soul of Hazrat Abu Ubaidah (RA), Sa’d Bin Abi Waqas (RA), Khalid Bin Walid (RA) and Abu Ayub Ansari (RA) is restless today. Why is it so? It is because Muslims have lost their dignity, their honour and their self-respect. The bravery and religious fervour that was their forte and heritage, they have lost these due to their ignorance and over-indulgence in frivolities.

It is not only that in times of difficulty a Muslim does not help a fellow Muslim, but tragically that the eagerness to earn the goodwill and friendship of a kafir has led a brother to chop the head of his own brother. Muslims have drunk the blood of Muslims. Muslims have dipped their hands in the blood of their own brothers.

O’ the Children of Islam! And O’ the lovers of this great Nation! You know it better than me that the thunder and fire that burnt the tents in Islamic world and put on fire the castle of Islamic Khilafat were derived from the hot blood of Arabs and Indians. And the power of wealth with which the Christians have succeeded in subjugating Muslim nations, a great chunk of it was from your hard labour.

Thus, is there any stupid and thick-headed Muslim who won’t understand the results of cooperation with the Christians? And this too in a situation when a drowning man seeks the help of a haystack and looks for a way out for cooperation that would save him from drowning?” [From the Fatwa of Maulana Mahmood Hassan on 16th Safar 1339 Hijri, corresponding to October 29, 1920, Gregorian year, The Prisoners Of Malta (Asira’n-e-Malta), Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian, Jamiat Ulama -I-Hind, English edition, p. 78-79]

Unlike some amongst the Ulema today who say that politics and Islam are separate, the Ulema at that time realized that they are inextricably linked. Just before the destruction of the Khilafah, the fourth session of Jamiat ul-Ulama Hind was held in Gaya on 24 December 1923. In this session learned scholars and teachers of Islam, assembled from all parts of India, discussed in great detail the question related to the political future of the Muslim community. After exhaustive deliberations, the session came to the unanimous view that politics and religion are inseparable components of Islam.

Seeing the wide influence that the Khilafat movement held even the Hindu, father of the current Indian state, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi joined it and became a member of the Central Khilafat Committee.

However after the destruction of the Khilafah at the hands of Mustafa Kamal Ataturk on 3rd March 1924, the movement died. Many then saw the restoration of the Khilafah as impossibility and started to focus on how to liberate India from British colonialism.

A day after the abolition of Khilafah, Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar said, as reported by the Times newspaper on 4th March 1924, “It is difficult to anticipate the exact effects the ‘abolition’ of Khilafah will have on the minds of Muslims in India. I can safely affirm that it will prove a disaster both to Islam and to civilization. The suppression of the time honoured institution which was, through out the Muslim world, regarded as a symbol of Islamic unity will cause the disintegration of Islam…”

How true his words were, after its abolition the Muslim world has witnessed exactly what he said. Today more than eighty years after its destruction, the Caliphate has again become a buzzword in the media as politicians, thinkers and the leaders of the West fear its return and Muslims yearn for its re-establishment. The president of the United States, George W. Bush said in a news conference in front of the White House on Wednesday, 11th October 2006, “extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate. The stakes couldn’t be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives. And they want us to leave. And they want to topple government. They want to extend an ideological caliphate that has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs.”

The West needs to realise that the Khilafah is an intrinsic part of Islam which instead of condemning they need to understand and will have to engage with in future when it is re-established.

The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent have not forgotten the necessity of the Khilafah. Many groups, scholars and thinkers today are calling for its return even within the sub-continent. This is evident from the call of Hizb ut-Tahrir to Dr. Israr Ahmad’s Tanzeem e-Islami in Pakistan, from Khilafat Andolan and Khilafat Majlis in Bangladesh to the now banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and many others.

The Khilafah will return and its rule will again liberate the Indian sub-continent as is established from the following ahadith about the future as well as others.

Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said: “A group of you will conquer India, Allah will open for them [India] until they come with its kings chained – Allah having forgiven their sins – when they return back [from India], they will find Ibn Maryam in Syria.” [Na’im b. Hammad in al-Fitan reports that Abu Huraira]

Thawban reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Two groups of my Ummah Allah has protected from the Hellfire: a group that will conquer India and a group that will be with ‘Isa ibnu Maryam” [Ahmad and An-Nisa’i].

May Allah (swt) allow us to participate in the Khilafat Movement of today as our predecessors did in the past.

Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has made every Nabi from the Anbiyaa’ (Prophets) whom He sent, the highest example or model for his people. After the death of the Prophets and the death of their miracles along with them, the Hikmah (wisdom) of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla willed that He send our master Muhammad ﷺ and made him the seal of the Prophets. He made his miracle everlasting as long as the heavens and earth remain and made him the high model or example for all the people, during his life and after his death. Allah created the human and created within him the tendency towards perfection. He is therefore constantly striving towards elevation and towards nearing perfection. For that reason, he likes to see upon the earth an example or model to follow. Allah did not efface this tendency in a manner that would conflict with his Fitrah (nature). Rather, He designated for him an example and obliged him to follow him. That was by making our master Muhammad ﷺ the highest model for all of mankind. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much.

(Al-Ahzaab: 21)

In the case where the Messenger ﷺ is no longer a living example before the people, then that drives them to seek an example that is present so as to imitate or follow him. They draw from such a model the resolve and determination to do that which is demanded or requested from them to do and they make the one who resembles the conduct of the Nabi ﷺ or the Sahaabah, may Allah Ta’Aalaa be pleased with them, the measure in respect to him being a high model or example for them. Therefore, whoever resembles the conduct of the Nabi ﷺ and the Sahaabah, is from the people of righteousness or uprightness in their view and someone like him is suitable to be a model. As for the one who’s conduct is in conflict with them, then no, he will not be taken as a model by them.

And from among them, there are those who scratch out or write off an example from their list due to the simplest of violations whilst others are lenient in respect to that and do not write him off unless his violations are numerous. This is the type of example or model that is being examined in this chapter’s discussion. That is because when the people say that so and so a person is my example or model, it means that he does not accept for himself or others except to be like the one he has taken as a high model or example.

The matter of having examples or models is like other issues which the person must subject to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. Is the person right when he erases people from the lists of the people of virtue, just because they have erred or sinned here and there? And is the person right who is more lenient in respect to the setting of examples and accepts some errors from himself and others and only removes such a person from the list of ideal examples if these errors were many?

The answer to that is that when idealising a model is within the limits of the tendency towards perfection, then this is a matter which Allah has made natural within the creation of the people and it is commended or praiseworthy. If such an example did not exist, then the human would not attempt to imitate anyone towards elevation ever. If, however, this idealising of a model meant that people sifted upon the idealistic basis, where they would write off those who are contrary to the ideal model and not give credence except to the one who matched the example, then this is blameworthy and indeed very dangerous. If this was to take over a particular person, then he has been taken over by the most dangerous of that which can take him away or remove him from his Deen.

That is because it is Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla who created the humans and it is He who revealed to them a Deen and made it obligatory upon them to adhere to. It is therefore He who accepts and does not accept from Zaid what he did or did not do. And it may be the most obvious of statements that it is obligatory upon the people “all of the people” to accept what Allah has accepted from other than them. That is so that they do not make themselves appear to have even greater concern than Allah for His Deen and His creation.

From the truths that are not open to discussion or debate is that Allah has specified the Anbiyaa’ (Prophets) alone from amongst mankind with Al-‘Ismah (infallibility), above the fact that he specifically chose and selected them in origin. If the possibility or capability to commit errors was not possible in respect to them, then they would not have been in need of their infallibility or protection granted to them to prevent them from sin. And if the possibility of sin was possible in respect to those whom Allah had selected and chosen specifically from the people and they were those who had the greatest Imaan, then by greater reason it is possible, on a wider scale, for this to be possible in respect to other than them. The Shar’a has established and affirmed this truth and it has been indicated to in the many Aayaat which discuss the matter of seeking forgiveness and requests that from the believers. If the matter of error (or sin) did not exist then there would be no need for seeking forgiveness and discussing it as much as it has been.

Even clearer than that is the speech of the Messenger ﷺ:

كُلُّ بَنِي آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الْخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ

“Every son of Adam errs (or sins) and the best of those who err (or commit sins) are the Tawwaabeen (those who turn regularly or often in repentance)”. (Ibn Majah)

The errors mentioned here means many errors or sins and it comes from the verb Khati’a, Yakhta’u, Khit’an and not from the verb Akhta’a, Yukhit’u, Khata’an. The first means the deliberate error whilst the second refers to the opposite of being right, like the one who targets a matter but does not hit it or misses it. The evidence for that is the Qawl of the Messenger ﷺ: “And the best of those who err or sin are the Tawwaabeen” and Taubah only occurs in respect to the sin and the one who commits the Khit’an a lot is called Khattaa’ (i.e. someone who often commits sin).

Therefore, the texts of the Shaari’ (Legislator) have indicated in a manner leaving no doubt that the Insaan (person) makes a lot of sins and that this is Maqbool (acceptable) to Allah, even if the person’s sins are numerous, as long as he does not persist upon the sin. Based upon this it is obligatory upon the Muslim, in obedience, to accept that which Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has accepted from His slaves. If he does not do that and remains measuring in an idealistic manner, then he will spend his whole life searching for an ideal model to follow and never find him. That is particularly when the formation of the ideal model is based upon his own imagination, whether some of it or part of it. That is because angels do not walk upon the earth and those upon it are humans who act rightly and commit sins.

Based upon this the danger of setting idealistic models or examples is apparent because the one who does that is subject or exposed to be taken away from his Deen when he does not find within the people that which he was expecting to find. It also paralyses the person from engaging in the work as he spends his time searching for that which does not exist and does not undertake actions unless he finds a model to emulate. At the end of all of this he will never find anything other than despair and frustration.

Idealism does not assist the spread of the virtuous acts within the society. That is because the one who does not accept the sin and Taubah of others only represents a source of problems for them. The Saheeh Hadeeth from the Nabi ﷺ, which mentions within about a man who killed ninety-nine people, is well-known and it observed how when the man learned that there was no Taubah (repentance) for him, that he killed the one he asked, due to his feelings that there was no difference between killing one hundred and killing one thousand. Then when he learned that Taubah was open to him after asking another, he moved in the direction of the believers and ceased his killing. As such, the acceptance of the Taubah plays a part in the spread of the virtuous acts and goodness, whilst the opposite brings an opposite result.

This idealism also plays a part in respect to fragmenting the Ummah if it was able to take a hold over the collective. That is because the majority of its individuals would employ this idealism and naturally each would see the corruption of the other upon that basis leading to the division of the hearts and splitting apart of the people.

It is necessary to turn attention to the fact that most of the people say with their tongues that the ideal model, according to the concept of the one who searched for, is an incorrect concept. However, even though they have said that with their tongues, they nevertheless go against their statement by their actions. So, for instance, if a particular Zaid from the people committed a sin, they don’t find it enough to just remove his name from the list of the people of virtue and good, but rather they make themselves appear as if they wear the cloak of prophethood and infallibility, in exaggeration and fraudulently, as if they do not sin greater than his sin. That is because, as we have stated earlier, they in the search for Ar-Riyaa’ (i.e. to be praised by others), get taken over by it, to repel the deficiency within them and to draw fake praise and commendation amongst the people. As they are bankrupt in their own actions, then a particular Zaid from amongst the people committing a particular sin, represents a golden opportunity for them to prove themselves, in the case where the self of such a person cannot be proven through correct or valid causes (or means).

The Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them, understood the danger of this idealism and they would keep as far away from it as possible. They used to embrace the one who erred, exhort him and remind him in a kind and mild manner without exaggeration or seeking praise (Riyaa’). That was due to their knowledge that something even greater in sin could possible happen from them. Contraventions from them in their capacity as individuals is a well-known matter and yet despite that, these contraventions, including some which were great, did not malign the fact that they were from the people of virtue and that they were the best of generations of man, as has been verified in the speech of Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla related to them. If they were the best of generations and yet as individuals they perpetrated major sins, then the possibility of sin, by greater reason, is possible in respect to those who live in the generations which are lesser than theirs.

The correct view which must dominate over the individual within the collective, is his feeling that he is less than other than him and not better than them. That is because every individual is aware of his own flaws whilst he is not aware of what someone else may have in terms of deficiencies or flaws. As such, we see such a person viewing others as being better than him. If this viewpoint dominated over the individuals within the collective, you would inevitable see a society in which every individual strives to catch up to others from one perspective and from another perspective you would see a society that does not pounce upon the flaws of people, and if the flaw of a certain Zaid or ‘Amr was discovered, then kindness and gentleness would be dominate over the society, and they would take him by the hand so that he stands upright upon the path, without them attempting to find self-satisfaction in chiding him and exaggerating his faults.

In summary, when the person sins, whatever his situation was, it is not permissible to disavow or repudiate him unless he is insistent upon that. Judgment is not passed upon him in that his Nafs is corrupt but rather he is accounted according to the level of his sin. He is advised and taken by his hand so that he does not sin again and so that his Nafs elevates and draws as close as possible towards perfection. Whoever claims that he does not err or sin, or indeed that he does not sin much, then he is not truthful in his claim, and whoever seeks the infallible upon the face of the earth, then he will never find them through his whole life.

Therefore, whoever is taken over by idealism, has been taken over by the most dangerous of that which can take him away from his Deen, because he will never find upon the earth that which he aspires for; neither within himself nor in others. And if believes that his envisaged or conjured model exists within some people, then it will quickly become apparent to him that he is wrong when the one whom he viewed to be a model sins or errs. He will then keep moving from one model to another until he is overcome by despair whilst he will not be protected from that except by the correct concepts emanating from the Islamic Aqeedah, so that Islaam becomes his mentality by which he reasons or comprehends, and his desires proceed according to what the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah have brought. He would then not formulate from his imagination an angelic picture of humans, because they cannot possibly be angels. He would realise that every human sins or errs and that the virtue is not negated from the one who errs. If he was to negate virtuousness or merit from the one who errs and then went to look at history and Seerah, he would find many errors and sins coming from the Sahaabah and those who followed them, which would oblige him to negate or remove the Fadl (favour, merit or virtue) from them, and in doing so he would be in opposition to the testimony of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla in respect to them.

The stating of these words and repeating of them, as we have previously stated, is not an unprecedented art, as all the people repeat them. However, the problem lies in the practical application of this understanding or concept. So how do we pass judgement upon the one who is confirmed to us that he has lied or committed Zinaa or stole or cheated? This is the art which the Nafs has to be conditioned upon, and it represents the ground which is virtually inaccessible.

]]>khabibislamcivProphet Muhammad’s ﷺ Impact on the Worldhttps://islamciv.com/2018/10/07/prophet-muhammads-%ef%b7%ba-impact-on-the-world/
Sun, 07 Oct 2018 08:01:53 +0000http://islamciv.com/?p=1674This is an excerpt from the book The Divine Reality: God, Islam and the Mirage of Atheism by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was truly a mercy to mankind. This assertion is not only justified by his message and his teachings, but it also includes his unprecedented impact on our world. There are two key reasons why his teachings on a social level were so transformative: the justice and compassion of Islam.

Compassion and justice are its central values, expressed through a sincere belief in the existence and worship of one God. By singling Him out for worship and being conscious of one’s accountability, a Muslim is encouraged to act compassionately, fairly and justly. The Qur’an clearly states in this regard:

“O you who believe, be steadfast in your devotion to God and bear witness impartially: do not let the hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to being God-conscious. Be mindful of God: God is well acquainted with all that you do.”[1]

“O you who believe, uphold justice and bear witness to God, even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or your close relatives. Whether the person is rich or poor, God can best take care of both. Refrain from following your own desire, so that you can act justly—if you distort or neglect justice, God is fully aware of what you do.”[2]

“What will explain to you what the steep path is? It is to free a slave, to feed at a time of hunger an orphaned relative or a poor person in distress, and to be one of those who believe and urge one another to steadfastness and compassion.”[3]

Tolerance and coexistence

When these values were practised and internalised, the Muslims created a society that was unmatched in history. At a time when Europe was entrenched in sectarian violence, racism, tribalism and hatred, the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were a light for the world. Consider the treatment of minorities such as the Jews and the Christians. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the treaty of Medina said:

“It is incumbent on all the Muslims to help and extend sympathetic treatment to the Jews who have entered into an agreement with us. Neither an oppression of any type should be perpetrated on them nor their enemy be helped against them.”[4]

The popular historian Karen Armstrong points out how the values of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ established an unprecedented coexistence: “The Muslims had established a system that enabled Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in Jerusalem together for the first time.”[5]

The Jewish academic historian Amnon Cohen illustrates the practical application of Islamic values, and how the Jews of Ottoman Jerusalem were free and contributed to society:

“No one interfered with their internal organisation or their external cultural and economic activities… The Jews of Ottoman Jerusalem enjoyed religious and administrative autonomy within an Islamic state, and as a constructive, dynamic element of the local economy and society they could—and actually did—contribute to its functioning.”[6]

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the companion and student of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, granted the Christians of Palestine religious freedom, security and peace. His treaty with the Palestinian Christians stated:

“This is the protection which the servant of God, the Leader of the faithful, grants to the people of Palestine. Thus, protection is for their lives, property, church, cross, for the healthy and sick and for all their co-religionists. In this way their churches shall not be turned into dwelling houses, nor will they be pulled down, nor any injury will be done to them or to their enclosures, nor to their cross, and nor will anything be deducted from their wealth. No restrictions shall be made regarding their religious ceremonies.”[7]

In 869 CE, patriarch Theodosius of Jerusalem confirmed the Muslims’ adherence to the values of their beloved Prophet ﷺ: “The Saracens [i.e. the Muslims] show us great goodwill. They allow us to build our churches and to observe our own customs without hindrance.”[8]

These historical narratives are not historical accidents. They are grounded in the Prophet’s ﷺ timeless values of tolerance and mercy.

Safety and protection

Europe in the 7th century was in utter darkness when it came to ensuring the safety and protection of minorities and foreign people living in or visiting a particular land. However, the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ teachings ensured that minorities were protected and lived in peace:

“He who harms a person under covenant, or charges him more than he can pay, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.”[9]

The 13th century jurist Al-Qarafi explains the above Prophetic teachings:

“The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the non-Muslims under Muslim protection. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of God, His Messenger, and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of God, His Messenger ﷺ, and the religion of Islam.”[10]

In light of the above, it is no wonder the Qur’an describes the Prophet ﷺ as “a mercy for the worlds”[11] and that God’s mercy “encompasses all things”[12]

When the Prophet’s ﷺ teachings were realised in history, minorities were protected, experienced peace and praised the Muslim authorities. For example, Bernard the Wise, a pilgrim monk, visited Egypt and Palestine in the reign of Al-Mu’tazz (866-9 CE), and he had the following to say:

“…the Christians and the Pagans [i.e. Muslims] have this kind of peace between them there that if I was going on a journey, and on the way the camel or donkey which bore my poor luggage were to die, and I was to abandon all my goods without any guardian, and go to the city for another pack animal, when I came back I would find all my property uninjured: such is the peace there.”[13]

The unprecedented impact and effect of Islamic values made people prefer the mercy and tolerance of Islam. Reinhart Dozy, an authority on early Islamic Spain, explains:

“…the unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also be taken into account. In religious matters they put pressure on no man… Christians preferred their rule to that of the Franks.”[14]

Professor Thomas Arnold, commenting on an Islamic source, states that Christians were happy and at peace with Islam to the point where they “called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims.”[15]

Freedom of belief

During a time when freedom of belief was a relatively alien concept, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ created a society that never forced anyone to convert to Islam. Forced conversion is utterly forbidden in Islam. This is due to the following Qur’anic verse:

“There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error….”[16]

Michael Bonner, an authority on the history of early Islam, explains the historical manifestation of the verse above:

“To begin with, there was no forced conversion, no choice between ‘Islam and the Sword’. Islamic law, following a clear Qur’anic principle (2:256), prohibited any such things: dhimmis [non-Muslims under Muslim protection] must be allowed to practice their religion.”[17]

Economic liberation

The teachings of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ caused the economic liberation of people under his leadership. Taxes were low and anyone who could not afford to pay their taxes would not have to pay anything.[18]

It was incumbent on the authorities to ensure that everyone, including non-Muslim citizens, had enough to feed their families and maintain a decent standard of living. For example, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, one of the Muslim leaders, wrote to his agent in Iraq: “Search for the people of the covenant in your area who may have grown old, and are unable to earn, and provide them with regular stipends from the treasury to take care of their needs.”[19]

A practical manifestation of the Prophet’s ﷺ teachings can be found in the following letter written by a rabbi in 1453. He was urging his co-religionists to travel to Muslim lands after Europe’s persecution of the Jews, and that they were economically emancipated: “Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the Earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom….”[20]

Inter-racial co-operation

Far from being a source of racial conflict, the Prophet ﷺ offered a viable model of inter-racial cooperation. The Qur’an eloquently states:

“People, we created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognize one another. In God’s eyes, the most honoured of you are the ones most mindful of Him: God is all knowing, all aware.”[21]

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ made it clear that racism has no place in Islam: “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor has a black any superiority over a white, except by piety and good action.”[22]

As Hamilton A. R. Gibb, a historian on Orientalism, stated:

“But Islam has a still further service to render to the cause of humanity. It stands after all nearer to the real East than Europe does, and it possesses a magnificent tradition of interracial understanding and co-operation. No other society has such a record of success uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavour so many and so various races of mankind… Islam has still the power to reconcile apparently irreconcilable elements of race and tradition. If ever the opposition of the great societies of East and West is to be replaced by co-operation, the mediation of Islam is an indispensable condition. In its hands lies very largely the solution of the problem with which Europe is faced in its relation with East. If they unite, the hope of a peaceful issue is immeasurably enhanced— but if Europe, by rejecting the co-operation of Islam, throws it into the arms of its rivals, the issue can only be disastrous for both.”[23]

The respected historian A. J. Toynbee also confirms: “The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue….”[24]

Scientific progress

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the bearer of the message of the Qur’an, both in word and deed. His message and teachings created the much-needed tranquillity, tolerance and peace that facilitated one of the most successful civilisations in history. While Europe was plunged in the darkness of ignorance, the Islamic civilisation inspired by the Prophet ﷺ produced a society that was a beacon of light for the entire world. Historian of science Victor Robinson succinctly summarises the contrast between medieval Europe and Islamic Spain:

“Europe was darkened at sunset, Cordova shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Cordova built a thousand baths; Europe was covered with vermin, Cordova changed its undergarments daily; Europe lay in mud, Cordova’s streets were paved; Europe’s palaces had smoke-holes in the ceiling, Cordova’s arabesques were exquisite; Europe’s nobility could not sign its name, Cordova’s children went to school; Europe’s monks could not read the baptismal service, Cordova’s teachers created a library of Alexandrian dimensions.”[25]

Islamic civilisation produced advances in mathematics, medicine, astronomy and chemistry. Consider the mathematician Al-Khawarizmi, who played a significant role in the development of algebra. He also developed the idea of algorithms, which has earned him the title of the grandfather of computer science, because without algorithms there would be no computers. Abu al-Qasim Az- Zahrawi has been described as the greatest medieval surgeon because of his inventions in surgical procedures and instruments.

Muslims and Arab scientists who understood and internalised Islamic values were also pioneers in dealing with mental and psychological disorders. For example, in the 8th century, the physician Razi built the first psychiatric ward in Baghdad. The 11th century physician Ibn Sina (known in the West as Avicenna—the founder of modern medicine) understood that most mental illness is physiologically based.[26]

Interestingly, Abu Zayd al-Balkhi, a 9th century physician, wrote a book on what is now known as cognitive behavioural therapy. His book, Sustenance of the Soul, was probably the first written account to distinguish between endogenous and reactive depression.[27]

These pioneers and Muslim intellectuals were directly influenced by the values of Islam. These include the words of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that encourage seeking the cure for illnesses: “There is no disease that God has sent down except that He also has sent down its treatment.”[28]

The Qur’an encourages reading, acquiring knowledge, reflection, and the empirical sciences. It is a book that mentions knowledge over 100 times and makes us reflect upon ourselves, and the world around us:

“The example of this worldly life is but like rain which We have sent down from the sky that the plants of the Earth absorb—those from which men and livestock eat—until, when the Earth has taken on its adornment and is beautified and its people suppose that they have capability over it, there comes to it Our command by night or by day, and We make it as a harvest, as if it had not flourished yesterday. Thus do We explain in detail the signs for a people who give thought.”[29]

“Read! In the name of your Lord who created: He created man from a clinging form. Read! Your Lord is the Most Bountiful One who taught by [means of] the pen, who taught man what he did not know.”[30]

“Say, ‘How can those who know be equal to those who do not know?’ Only those who have understanding will take heed.”[31]

“Then do they not look at the camels—how they are created? And at the sky—how it is raised? And at the mountains—how they are erected? And at the Earth—how it is spread out?”[32]

“There truly are signs in the creation of the heavens and Earth, and in the alternation of night and day, for those with understanding, who remember God standing, sitting and lying down, who reflect on the creation of the heavens and Earth….”[33]

The teachings of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ not only created an environment conducive to scientific progress, but also helped shaped the intellectual growth of a very important man in the history of science. His name was Ibn al-Haytham, and he is considered one of the world’s first scientists.[34]

According to many historians of science, such as David C. Lindberg, Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be amongst the first to have formalised the scientific method with emphasis on systematic experimentation.[35]

Ibn al-Haytham wrote The Book of Optics, which had a huge impact on Europe. Without his formalisation of the scientific method, it could be argued that we would not be enjoying the scientific advancements that we enjoy today.

Ibn al-Haytham was also a student of theology and the Qur’an. He clearly cites the Qur’an as his inspiration to study science and the natural world: “I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will.”[36]

Professor George Saliba argues, “There is hardly a book on Islamic civilization, or on the general history of science, that does not at least pretend to recognize the importance of the Islamic scientific tradition and the role this tradition played in the development of human civilisation in general.”[38]

Professor Thomas Arnold was of the view that Islamic Spain facilitated the European Renaissance: “…Muslim Spain had written one of the brightest pages in the history of Medieval Europe… bringing into birth a new poetry and a new culture, and it was from her that Christian scholars received what of Greek philosophy and science they had to stimulate their mental activity up to the time of the Renaissance.”[39]

Perhaps one of the most poignant summaries of the greatness of the civilisation that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ created is in a speech by the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina:

“There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world. It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins. One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known.

“And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration. Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic.

“When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others. While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.

“Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership. And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. This kind of enlightened leadership—leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage—led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.”[40]

The key reason the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was able to directly influence such tolerant and compassionate societies was because affirming the Oneness of God, pleasing and worshipping Him, was the spiritual and moral basis of his life and the lives of those who loved and followed him. This provided timeless, objective moral grounding to achieve what the 18th century economist Adam Smith claimed was the first nation: “…under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquillity which the cultivation of the sciences requires….”[41]

The Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ trustworthiness, high moral character and the impact he has had on the world establishes a strong case for his being the final messenger of God. Studying his life and understanding his teachings in a holistic and nuanced way will lead to only one conclusion: he was a mercy to the world and the one chosen by God to lead the world into Divine guidance and light.

[5] Armstrong, K. (1997) A History of Jerusalem: One City Three Faiths. New York: Ballantine Books, p. 245.

[6] Cohen, A. (1994) A World Within: Jewish Life as Reflected in Muslim Court Documents from the Sijill of Jerusalem (XVIth Century). Part One. Philadelphia: The Center for Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania, pp. 22-23.

]]>granadaislamcivMuslims Feeding Migrants in Bosniahttps://islamciv.com/2018/09/20/muslims-feeding-migrants-in-bosnia/
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:05:25 +0000http://islamciv.com/?p=1656Asim Latić, a restaurant owner in Velika Kladuša, a Bosnian border town with Croatia, said: “In February I saw a man standing in the street in the snow. I asked if he was hungry, and he said he didn’t have any money.

“I said it didn’t matter and fed him. That guy texted his friends and the next day they came. More people came, and I had to close the restaurant. Since then, we’ve given out 68,000 meals.”

This Bosnian man closed his restaurant to residents and is now only serving free meals to migrants and refugees. pic.twitter.com/YTQLBEOOEK

It’s unfortunate that migrants nowadays are forced to flee the Muslim world for Europe when in the past the opposite occurred. Regimes in the Muslim world are to blame for this crisis. Their unwavering support for America, Russia and their allies has created this situation because they failed to stand up to injustice and implement Islam in the region.

The Islamic State is responsible for looking after the affairs of people due to the saying of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ where he said:

In the absence of the Islamic State Muslims such as Asim Latić and thousands of others are forced to take on this duty themselves, May Allah accept their efforts.

Abdullah ibn ‘Amr asked the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: “Which Islam is the best?” He said, “To feed the hungry and to give salaam to those you know and those you don’t know.” (Agreed upon)

A future Islamic State implementing Islam will lead to safety and security in its lands, and the Islamic economic system which is based on distribution and circulation of wealth, will lead to a reduction in poverty and increase in living standards. This means no one will be forced to flee their homes out of fear and poverty.

]]>Asim LatićislamcivJewish Immigration to the Islamic Statehttps://islamciv.com/2018/09/20/jewish-immigration-to-the-islamic-state/
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:04:56 +0000http://islamciv.com/?p=1661After the liberation of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453, Jewish refugees from all over Europe were encouraged to settle in the country and to take advantage of the liberal treatment accorded them by the Sultan. When the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid heard about the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by King Ferdinand, he said: “Can you call such a king wise and intelligent? He is impoverishing hiscountry and enriching my kingdom.”

Its well established in history that Jews flourished in the Islamic State after their expulsion from Spain with some reaching senior positions within the society. Moses Hamon, for example, who after fleeing Spain with his father, became the physician for Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Caliph.

Hans Dernschwam, a travelling agent of the Fugger banking house, describes the Jews in Turkey in his travel diary:

In Turkey you will find in every town innumerable Jews of all countries and languages. And every Jewish group sticks together in accordance with its language. Wherever Jews have been expelled in any land they all come together in Turkey, as thick as vermin; speak German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Czechish, Polish, Greek, Turkish, Syriac, Chaldean and other languages besides these. As is their custom, everyone wears clothes in accordance with the language he speaks.

In Constantinople, the Jews are thick as ants. The Jews themselves say that they are very numerous. They live in the lower part of the city near the sea. Those Jews that are old, who have a little money, travel to the Holy Land, to Jerusalem, and still hope that they will one day all come together, from all countries, into their own native land and there secure hold of the government. The well-to-do Jews send money to Jerusalem to support them, for one cannot make any money there …

Many Marranos – that is Jews who turned Christian, as in Spain or voluntarily became Christians in other places – all come to Turkey and become Jews again. The Jews of Constantinople also have a printing press and print many rare books. They have goldsmiths, lapidaries, painters, tailors, butchers, druggists, physicians, surgeons, cloth-weavers, wound-surgeons, barbers, mirror-makers, dyers, silk-workers, gold-washers, refiners of ores, assayers, engravers …

The Jews do not allow any of their own to go about begging. They have collectors who go from house to house and collect into a common chest for the poor. This is used to support the poor and the hospital.

These actions of the Ottomans were part of the well-established Islamic values of treating non-Muslim citizens known as Dhimmi (people of covenant) with good treatment.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “He who harms a person under covenant, or charged him more than he can, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.” (Narrated by Yahya b. Adam in Al-Kharaaj)

]]>spainislamcivDe Gaulle: “What can I do if the Qur’an is greater than France?”https://islamciv.com/2018/09/17/de-gaulle-what-can-i-do-if-the-quran-is-greater-than-france/
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:59:51 +0000http://islamciv.com/?p=1648When Charles De Gaulle, was Minister of Algerian Affairs in Occupied Algeria he tried an experiment to force French values on Algerian Muslims. It ultimately failed because Islamic thought is too powerful to be defeated by kufr (disbelief).

He responded to his critics, “What can I do if the Qur’an is greater than France?”

They desire to extinguish Allah’s Light with their mouths but Allah will perfect His Light, though the disbelievers hate it.

(Surah Saff, verse 8)

We see similar experiments nowadays in the UK where the government is trying to impose British values on Muslim school children. The fundamental idea underpinning British values is that man-made law is superior to Allah’s law. Even a child can see the fallacy of comparing a corrupt, self centered politician sitting in parliament to Allah, the creator of man, life and the universe. For adults one word shows the fallacy of democracy which is the disaster called “Brexit”.

This plan to corrupt Muslim children will fail so long as Muslim parents continue to culture their children in Islamic values. The Islamic values of obedience, accountability and responsibility vs. the British values of freedom will always win. Islamic values will also lead towards a safer society and are the clear solution to the current crime and gang epidemic plaguing UK inner cities.

Samuel Huntington says, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” [The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p.51]

]]>quran-greater-than-franceislamcivThe Best of Martyrshttps://islamciv.com/2018/09/16/the-best-of-martyrs/
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 14:28:41 +0000http://islamciv.com/?p=1645Among the teeming and terrified crowd of protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in January 2011, a young man and an older man crouched huddled next to each other as bullets from the security services whizzed overhead.

In the din, the two spoke of how the Prophet Muhammad had once declared that whoever dies speaking truth to a tyrant will die a martyr.[1] They spoke of the great martyrs of the Prophet’s day, who awaited those latter-day believers who would one day join them in Paradise. Seized by inspiration, the young man cried, “I will greet them for you,” stood up and was shot in the head. “I touched his blood with my hands,” the elder man, a famous Muslim preacher, it turns out, recounted later in a TV interview, “It smelled like perfumed musk.”[2]

Notes

[1] Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “The master of the martyrs is Hamza ibn Abdul Mattalib, and a man who stands (in front of) an oppressive ruler and enjoins the good and forbids the evil and so is killed for it.” (Hakim)